Aerie e ey eed whet i τὸ 
backs «αγένεψφαι ὑπ PA, Lhe ene ΤΗΣ bed ιϑυυϑόνοον beteked eee verte 
δ, ΓΝ ΚΜ ΤΗΝ abe ΠΗ δ, peed yet με Mire Pet riers deny λυδάφ 
ἐν abated dbeeberisd ite t ἡσε φερνε. ἢ ΚΟ υδόλννν μοι γεν χόν᾿ ἐσσι 
> art ATE NY At ere peanaynssenarat ahegneenepnerl δι γε pda haere rt 
δόμα δῦ γόνα eet νον νμυλνα λοϑ μενα, your yeatote pagetapr renee 
4 ete ooh ree φως 0 oO eee eee dedenedebsh shen wa rbenemenenentt 
4 ἣν badsere =o! viviatanacenepebiival chagyeanes ἐγρυόνν ὁ φφούδι εν ὧν 
Jade Huet ἐφφηδτῳ He Noaipensieletesspanetetcgebees eect aes ΝΜ 
Sibel φγεφο. 47" het φυγὴ δῷ HO eT etae ah eer weeny δ 
tar MMH TRE A ΚΗ petaih (ee deeers er cateye tr, ribor 
φωγενεφοὶ. ἀφ λεδη φίλ γυνή Ψ Ὁ κόγτῦν 


ν 
EK) ri 
OO] ° 
3 ; : ; 
ered .) Vs ᾿ ¥ ‘ Ye bese £  ineelhethobefted 
ΤΉ ΠΟ Ὁ πῇ ἡμὴ Στ Ἢ i ; : inet ἈΜῊΝ ' Pesantieg' 44 chek 
t ων x . d ey Fen ou poet b-boes 
vf Ae ἀν ΑΨ» Ὁ 
atest 
ὡς mh ei 
habeys ΣΝ outta Ah aia hinnandehataeeahs 
gen ee pity 
elegans siehesancbart echt etae 
ΝῊ ΜΗ ΝΜ 4 4 Ἢ ὃ ψ ie planaerenanae Paver ted it nts Me bey bet 
Beater st dey Ray yt sith : pitcentise ts 
Peri μα ; ᾿ ᾿ , Y t 
Pine tds tbs ᾿ Η ἡ Sid ha hemes eakesbene 
τὴ } ἘΝῚ iv) ν sexi Cerda bits x. ὑμὴν rite Net ΡΝ 
‘ ‘Pe ΟΝ 
᾿ ΣΑΙ ΝΣ Mature 
Dadirityial Υ ty ᾿ ᾿ μ ἢ ὅν erst titabisbonennseaonal 
bye yeyt i ae ἣν prise Patisteet f δον ταν δ λον τ σὸν Πόθεν ας peta Bebo 
pod oo) bi b + ᾿ 
ἀγα γι} εὐθὺν a ϑαϑ νυ λα, οὐ ϑοϑο ba tepeiadetates 
ΣῊ νυ ξυῤο νῇ aban t beds} piney Shed NaN beg: 
4 ἐν A rp-etelp ΠΗ he ᾿ f ον ον 
ΠΩ renee ΜΗ ΨῚ pet ie ais boi vte gpevereteta ven 
ὃ; oy + Abb Ue vivre 


4} 


ἰδ. rip bier! 
ν δά νε δὴ νὰ ὅν, ἮΝ |. Tonal 

+ ΠΗ ΜῈ ΡΝ iotaeet 
Η epee any Hele ition ΜΝ Ἢ ont ΤΡ heard tte fal ἀέρι 


fi Hosen tt ity Peer? Saat ἐσόξαψεχνὸνενενὸν 
: wey ribs hee shat oP ppsbebed 
δ Wap tise t HUE em δεν + ce haan hd a 
ἘΆΝ ay ἐν Font Δ 
δ be 4 ΧΗ 
ΜΝ ῃ τ 
ἩΜΜΉ Re μφοϑε ΜΝ 
ep phgy ne ead 9}}. are nee δὶ bee) ΠΝ 
ht vb oped prada bead Bade e 2h ah Ep as 9 Apap bhi 
ΝΗ ΜῊΝ ‘ oat 
ἘΔ θυ} poner Ὁ 
janet ΠΩΣ Pap δ 2. i} ᾿ 
ὑνγήϑενθν 
eb oeeh eee yah 


ΩΝ 


ΨΥ 
Abide νὴ βν >! 
ca 


+ 
AD 4 (03 obs 9) 
T Deedee 4 


ΠΣ 


ΠΣ 
italien? 
Le be i ; op a dred 
᾿ ἩΜ Θὸν ἰῷ ᾿ rasa eta 
3 ἡ ἀφ 
ΜῊ 
ὲ ἘΝ τ 
υορας ΠΩ 
ey ἐγ ννν th elt eet 
ieeeerite 
et 
sy 
! iit at 
iy ears aii 
ig ipa mit av sie: 
ΗΒ ΉΜΉΩΝ 
aya ad ΝΗῚ 


A shih ai δ τε pe 
Πα Πα γον 
aii pasate: ait 
ΠΗ Line pnmpaaimammnanrinain Gay sey Ai hi 
ΠΗ Ne Nae te see ἈΝ πα a 
habe 


aiaees 
Santa ath 


: rth aad bah 
vawainadlopeinedrsbrists 2% 
bbe ssabpecceseeiwtve 
eb 4 : ἐνὶ 


hia) 

ala 

Fb oped βαρ aa 
Tae) a eed τὰ 
’ meee rr 

ὁ Ὁ ὁ γ τῇ ἡ eae γὴν 
νἀ ἢ ΜΠ] 

aie Eee 


err 
VY bee ἡ» νην τὸ οὐαὶ 
Ἷ ἩΡΗ 
ΠΕ ΠΗ ἡ 
ΜῊ 
ἣν ih iret ἢ ; were? ἡ "ὦ. * watt haha 
: Gait 
} Bann) i aeistnpeseuagy δὴ iataticdsnr sed ateiniarcaragadainn 
ot ΡΟΣ ἐπ δον ooh 
ἈΝ 
Ἷ πάχνη ; + 
ΔΝ ἃ τϑ Ὁ δὴ ἢ εὖ bal 4 τ " : a i 
ΠΥ ΜΉΗΡ ΝΣ; via ted pret : hen λα ρ φη9 πος με 
{  διννή αν ᾿ πος 4 
path ad atte νῦν ‘ 
writwryy ; aa ra weit va + 
ὃ ΜΩ͂Ν ᾿ ἘΡΑΚ ΡΥ ta 
al Mes beet Linge theron y τ ΤῊ eis 


vey 
Ll ΜΕΝ 
fA 


Ne 


'k 
s 


OUTLINE OF NEW TESTAMENT 
CHRISTOLOGY 
A STUDY OF GENETIC RELATIONSHIPS WITHIN 


THE CHRISTOLOGY OF THE NEW 
TESTAMENT PERIOD 


ν᾿ “ἢ Ni 
RN 


τ 


yi 
ἢ 


OUTLINE OF NEW TESTAME 
CHRISTOLOGY 


A STUDY OF GENETIC RELATIONSHIPS WITHIN 
THE CHRISTOLOGY OF THE NEW 
TESTAMENT PERIOD 


ἐν 
JOHN COWPER GRANBERY, PH.D. 


CHICAGO 
THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO PRESS 
eo 


CoryRIGHT 1909 By 
Tue UnIvERSITY OF CHICAGO 


Published December 1909 


Composed and Printed By 
The University of Chicago Press 
Chicago, Illinois, U. S. A. 


To all his instructors the author makes grateful acknowledgment of 
indebtedness. He desires to make especial mention of the assistance of 
Associate Professor Clyde Weber Votaw, whose interest, encouragement, 
and suggestions have contributed helpfully toward this dissertation. 


“A Ne. 
Me 


ἣν 


itn: 


ἣ 


TABLE OF CONTENTS 


INTRODUCTION . : ε ds 


Aim, Explanation of Charts, and Résumé. 
Charts—Chronological and Genetic. 
Selected Bibliography. 


JewisH MESsSIANISM 


. THE MESSIANISM OF JESUS 


. JEWISH-CHRISTIAN CHRISTOLOGY 


THE PAULINE CHRISTOLOGY 


CHRISTOLOGY IN THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS AND ACTS 


. COSMOLOGICAL CHRISTOLOGY OF THE EPISTLES TO THE COLOS- 


SIANS AND THE EPHESIANS 


. CHRISTOLOGY OF THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS 
. CHRISTOLOGY IN First PETER AND First CLEMENT 
. APOCALYPTICAL CHRISTOLOGY (THE APOCALYPSE OF Joun) . 
. CHRISTOLOGY IN THE PASTORAL EPISTLES . 
XI. 
XII. 
ΧΙΠ. 


THE JOHANNINE CHRISTOLOGY. 
THE IGNATIAN CHRISTOLOGY 


CHRISTOLOGY IN THE EPISTLE OF BARNABAS AND IN LATER WoRKS 


ConcLuDING REMARKS 


7] 


PAGE 


109 


127 


INTRODUCTION 
AIM, EXPLANATION OF CHARTS, AND RESUME 


This study surveys the entire period of the New Testament history and 
literature, ca. 28-160 A. D., and includes the other extant Christian writings 
of these years that lie outside of the New Testament canon. 

The effort is to present types of Christology within the New Testament 
period in such a way that they will stand out with their distinctive features 
and in their proper relationships, and to denote the character and sources 
of the conception of Christ in writings not so fully christological. It is 
not proposed to give an exhaustive study of the several types. Important 
questions are left unanswered, or the answer is only vaguely hinted at; for 
example, the character and extent of some of the non-Jewish influences. 
The study is offered as a contribution to the understanding of the Chris- 
tology of the period chiefly in its bold, outstanding features and more 
general relationships. 

The dates given are not to be taken rigidly; they are intended to be 
suggestive, and form no essential part of the charts. It is not expected that 
anyone will find all of the dates acceptable. In many cases the evidence 
barely makes possible a choice between different dates. The development 
of Christology does not move along strictly chronological lines, and yet it 
is so closely bound up with the several periods that an attempt at approxi- 
mate dating is unavoidable. It is to be noted also that a not unimportant 
factor in determining the chronology of the literature is the development 
of the christological thought itself. 

The charts cannot tell everything, and in some instances may prove 
actually misleading. The connecting lines in Chart II do not indicate 
every relationship—only the principal connections. For example, there is 
indirect Alexandrian influence in the Pauline Christology, but it is compre- 
hended only under the very general head: ‘‘Gentile Needs and Thought.” 
Pauline influence is to be found in the Epistle to the Hebrews and the 
Apocalypse of John, but is not sufficiently direct and prominent to find 
place in the chart, unless the chart be made so complicated as to destroy 
its value. The personality of Jesus influenced in some degree all types of 
Christology, but it is not deemed best to draw connecting lines in every 
instance. The Matthaean Christology, that of Polycarp, James, etc., are 
given no visible connections, but this means only that they are products of 
9] 9 


10 HISTORICAL AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES 


the period, not sufficiently indebted to any special source to call for connect- 
ing lines. 

It is not intended to suggest that Gnosticism as such has made actual con- 
tributions in every instance where its influence is indicated by connecting 
lines, but that under the influence of the gnostic controversy the Christology 
in question took on the given form. 

Chart I presents substantially the outline of this study. Chart II 
exhibits the genetic relationships. ‘The succeeding treatment presents the 
evidence. 

For convenience a brief résumé of the results achieved is here given: 

In some of its leading features Christology existed in the form of Jewish 
messianism before Jesus came. His own ideals were nearer to Hebrew 
prophetism than to Jewish messianism; nevertheless he gave grounds for 
the application to himself of the messianic category. His purely personal, 
ethical, and religious influence is not estimated in this study, save as it bore 
upon the christological development. That the rich, strong, creative life 
proceeded from and gathered about Jesus is not denied; the age may well 
have owed to him first of all, its freshness and power. But where spiritual 
life is rich and growing, theology will be undergoing corresponding changes 
of form, and it is only with the christological aspects that we are here con- 
cerned. The fact is not overlooked that Jesus impressed men as being 
such a one as to require the use of various categories for the adequate evalua- 
tion of his person; all that is affirmed is that Jesus did not create those 
categories, nor explicitly teach their reference to himself, save that of mes- 
siahship in a modified, transformed, and spiritualized sense. 

Had Jewish messianism been the only determining factor we might well 
drop the word Christology altogether in favor of messianism. But when 
we come, for example, to the Johannine Christology we find little messianism. 
Paul was the first after Jesus, so far as we know, to experience keenly the 
inadequacy of the messianic concept. His contribution is discussed under 
the heads: the pre-existent and incarnate Lord, the crucified Redeemer, 
the cosmic Savior, the indwelling Christ, and the divine Son of God. An 
advance upon the Pauline Christology is found in the cosmological Chris- 
tology of Colossians and Ephesians, which was a further development of 
Paulinism, but made larger use of Alexandrian thought in the conflict with 
incipient Gnosticism. Another bold Alexandrian type was that of Hebrews, 
which was not so close to Paul but was directly dependent on Philo. In the 
Apocalypse of John, Jesus was interpreted by means of the concepts of 
apocalyptic, combined with the universalism of the post-apostolic age and 
a comparatively small Christian element. In First Peter and First Clement 

10 


OUTLINE OF NEW TESTAMENT CHRISTOLOGY 11 


we have edifying epistles containing much Christology, but not sufficient 
that is distinctive to warrant giving them a place beside the great types 
already discussed. The explicit emergence of the doctrine of Christ’s 
saving mission to the world of the dead in First Peter is notable. 

The Synoptic Gospels present a double problem, but we are at this point 
concerned with the Christology of the authors themselves and not with 
their sources. Mark represents the age just succeeding Paul; lying in the 
background is a high Pauline Christology. Luke-Acts falls at the begin- 
ning of the second century and moves in the direction of the apologies of 
the middle of the century. Matthew is strongly christological, representing 
an advanced stage and moving toward Catholicism. 

The Johannine Christology is a further development of Paulinism; it is 
many-sided—mystical, theological, betraying sympathy with the deeper 
currents of the age, conserving what was most profound in Christianity and 
at the same time transforming it all into the ripest christological product of 
the period. The Ignatian Christology, called to expression by gnostic error, 
represents another bold, though unsystematized interpretation. A Jew 
could not bring himself to speak of Christ as God in the unreserved manner 
of this vigorous ecclesiastic. The originality of his thought may be dis- 
cerned by reading his letters beside that of his conservative contemporary 
Polycarp. The current Christology appears again in the Pastoral Epistles, 
affirmed in opposition to gnostic error. A somewhat different and more 
responsive type appears in Barnabas. 

About the middle of the second century there arose certain edifying 
works not strongly christological: James, Hermas, Didache, Second 
Clement, Jude, and Second Peter. In this period the gnostic systems were 
fully developed and the real controversy began. The earlier apologists 
also were putting forth their works. But the discussion of these subjects 
would take us beyond the New Testament period proper to the age of the 
Catholic church. It is a singular and significant fact, however, that among 
those counted heretics there should have been one who was at least partly 
gnostic, who understood, as did no contemporary of whom we know, the 
gospel of the Christ who brings spiritual freedom as it was preached by the 
apostle Paul—Marcion of Pontus. 

If now we ask to what extent the development of christological thought 
was in accord with Jesus, anything like an adequate answer would carry 
us beyond the task we have set ourselves. It may not be amiss, however, 
to note that although Paul had his gaze fixed on the exalted Lord and not on 
the earthly Jesus, yet in certain respects he came nearer understanding 
Jesus than the Jewish Christians at Jerusalem, many of whom had known 

11 


12 HISTORICAL AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES 


Jesus in the flesh. In the death of Jesus, Paul saw the principle of self- 
sacrifice that animated his life. Paul’s universalism was a logical develop- 
ment of the universalism implicit in Jesus. Paul’s doctrine of the freedom 
of the Christian man was essentially one with the ideal of ethical and 
religious freedom for which Jesus lived and died. But it would be a mistake 
to overlook the fact that at every point the way of arriving at these principles 
is different. Into Paul’s thought there enter the wisdom of the rabbis, the 
speculation of apocalyptic, and the popular thought-world of Hellenism. 
On the other hand, Jesus thinks and speaks in terms that are elementary 
and universal; his religious ideas are simple, fundamental, and mighty. 
Although Paul’s liberation of the gospel from national barriers was in 
accord with the mind of Jesus, Paul did not appeal for support to Jesus’ 
own attitude of freedom; indeed, in his view, Jesus was born under law and 
came as a minister of circumcision for the truth of God (Gal. 4:4; Rom. 
15:8). The basis of Jesus’ criticism of the law was purely ethical: the 
law substituted appearance for reality and did not go to the heart of things. 
Paul’s polemic against the law was practical in motive also, but his conten- 
tion was for redemption in Christ. The love of neighbor was broader in 
the thought of Jesus than in that of his followers; for while they were not 
lacking in the comprehensive Christian virtue of love, they dwelt upon the 
love of brethren of the church. Where Paul departs most widely from 
the thought of Jesus is in the sphere of doctrine and not of life; he stakes 
everything on certain divine acts that entered into human history but tran- 
scended it—acts which secure for men salvation: the incarnation, death, 
and resurrection of Christ. Although Paul spoke of the obedience and 
self-sacrifice of Jesus Christ, he had in mind the exemplification of these 
virtues on the part of the Son of God who came down from heaven to save 
men, rather than their exemplification in Jesus as he walked among men. 
Yet the latter was not absent, and had not Jesus, in Paul’s view, lived that 
kind of a life, the ascription to him of that character in the larger con- 
ception would have been an impossibility. 

Wrede (Paulus, S. 88-97; Eng. trans., pp. 155-69) protests vigor- 
ously against the statement that Paul understood Jesus, and minimizes 
almost to the extent of elimination all dependence of Paul on Jesus. Closely 
as they are related, we must in this connection distinguish between life and 
dogma, and our study is of dogma. Had Wrede confined to the sphere 
of doctrine his contention as to Paul’s independence, his position would 
have had more to commend it. 


12 


OUTLINE OF NEW TESTAMENT CHRISTOLOGY 


CHARTS—CHRONOLOGICAL AND GENETIC 
CHART I 


CHRONOLOGICAL EXHIBIT OF TYPES OF CHRISTOLOGY WITHIN THE 
NEw TESTAMENT PERIOD 


Hebrew Prophetism 
Jewish Messianism 


A.D. THE MESSIANISM OF JESUS 
30- 40 JEWISH-CHRISTIAN CHRISTOLOGY 
40- 50 


50- 60 PAULINE CHRISTOLOGY 
60- 70 “ (Sources of Synoptic Gospels) 


7o- 80 Mark 
80- 90 COSMOLOGICAL CHRISTOLOGY (Col. and Eph.) 
go-100 CHRISTOLOGY OF HEBREWS 
I Peter 
I Clement 
APOCALYPTICAL CHRISTOLOGY (The Apocalypse of John) 
I0O-1I0 Luke-Acts 
MATTHAEAN CHRISTOLOGY 
Pastoral Epistles 
IIO-120 JOHANNINE CHRISTOLOGY 
IGNATIAN CHRISTOLOGY 
Polycarp 
120-130 Apocalypse of Peter 
130-140 Gospel of Peter 
Barnabas 
(Marcion) 
140-150 Jude 
James 
Hermas GNosTICsS 
150-160 Didache APOLOGISTS 
II Clement 
II Peter 


13 


14 HISTORICAL AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES 


CHART ΤΠ 


SHOWING GENETIC RELATIONSHIPS WITHIN THE CHRISTOLOGY OF THE 
New TESTAMENT PERIOD 


ebrew Prophetism 
Babylonian-Persia 


Religion 

A. Ὁ. Jewish Messianism 

20 ᾿ Gentile 
THE MESSIANISM AND PERSONALITY OF JESUS -Needs and 

30 Ἴ ν « Thought 

JEWISH-CHRISTIAN CHRISTOLOGY y 

40 [ a Alexandrianism 

5° PAULIN RISTOLOGY ϑ6 

60 ¥ a + ra) ee ‘| ngsticism 

70 | ark CosMOLOGICAL 


80 II Thess. CHRISTOLOGY 
90 I Peter of Col. and Eph. 7 


APOCALYPTICAL 
CHRISTOLOGY 
of Apoc. of John 
100 Luke-Act | 
MATTHAEAN Ι 
CHRISTOLOG 
110 JOHANNINE CHHISTOLOGY 
120 Polycary IGNATIAN CHRISTOLOGY 
Apoc. of Peter Gospel o Barnabas 
130 Peter 
Jude James 
140 Hermas 
150 Didache Marcion 
II Clement 
160 II Peter 


APOLOGISTS 


14 


15 


OUTLINE OF NEW TESTAMENT OHRISTOLOGY 


a El 


tea rmitr 1f1-ol seqeuieg ΟΟΙ ε6-9 2 2 sjoy-ayn'T 
ἘΝ ΤΩΣ 8 KL 96-01 smoiqayy | —SL -qay ‘seqeuieg ‘“I9}9g 1 SL-ol (suonippe 1918] τ 09-01 
meyesniaf Jo uononsyseq GL 9 Ε Seanons 
YR 2 yey awos Sundaoxs) moyeyy 
6L-69 uvisedsa, 
69-g9 snTPUA ‘OyIO “eqrey oor—(oL) Sg smaiq 
€1-99 1eA\\ Ystmof -3FJ 917 0} Burpi0sse jadsoyy |° +: -0L-09 
to o19N Aq uonno ol-Sg (Ajqeqoid) x1e 
ΘΟΙΘ Δα ὍΘΙ οι WEIN 


-asiod pue suioy jo Suruing 


tg-6S sayjsidy 1810} 


16S 
ἀ : 
—LS ¢9S$-SS 10yeind01g snisaq 584 ae Se en 9 
1 6S 
ς Σ a 4 ‘ 
-L§ goS-SS xyoq 10 {899} tg-'S 5191191 sjneg sae pee ΠΣ ὙΠῸ = 09=05 
eee (ἔς ‘<S) γ ἐξῷ -woy 
‘ δ 
o$ Ὅ9 xyaq jo 1πϑπηϊποάαάν €$ 02 TT ‘(2189) ΤΩΝ I 
bb-1b eddusy ΡΟΙΘῊ (gh 
bS—1b snipne[Dd ‘Lb) Ob ‘gh “ssa, 11 “Sseyy, I 1 0S-0F 
Iv—LE (e[nSyeo) 1esaeg 5π|80 
z£-of ‘p92 [neg 10 UOIsSIZAUOD 
of ‘pa snsaf jo {1894 
gf 
-οῦ 1O}VINIOIg 918114 snyuog 
of-gI ysaug ys seydeieg 
LE—-pz ‘snueqry 
5] Π9ΛΉ ΡῈ sloJadwy jdouy rsnry Πυθα Ὴ ‘av 


- ee τ - τ ὕὍὕὍνὕϑ..-........... 0 λ. 0.0... ς΄ ὉΠ τ Ὁ στο 
eee Ππ-ς- “ σΦἔΠσΠσπσπ-π-ι-π---- ““  ΄΄“΄ “ ΄΄΄΄΄΄΄΄---ςς-ςςς--ς-ς-ς-ςςς- 


ΘΙΝΉΛΗ GNV AMALVAALIT AO ΠΊΒΥΙ, TVOIODOTONOYHO 
ΙΠ LAVHO 


15 


See ΞΘ ΞΘ ὁ τ'τ’ΠΠΠΠΠ ΠΤ ΠΠὀπ τ τ ---ςςς----ος.οςςς--Ὸ-ςς-----οοΟς--ο-οοοο---- ες 


gorr ‘paseideg 4 τι 
Sor ‘po dieosjog ‘snyeusy 


oFI-ool 19194 jo ον 
L11-Lot snyeu 
-3] pue divofjog jo sapsidq 


obr—o6 ayoepiq 

£11-g6 
uyof 11 ‘uyof 1 ‘uyof 1 
96 “56 γιϑῖπο] 1 
o11-06 sajjsidq 18Β1ΟΊ584 ‘uyof 
oo1-16 sowe{ 


L11-g6 uelery, 
36-96 PAION 


oo1-og apnf{ 

S6-0g uyof jo "σοάν 
06-1g 19194 1 

ΟΟΙ-Οῦ 510  -97ΠῚ “We 


96-1g πος] 


HISTORICAL AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES 


sjusAW pue siojedwuiy jdouy 


OZI-OOI 19794 10 Buryoveig | COI “9 


1909}. IT 
‘sayjsidq [e10}seg 
‘suendd3q 0} 
‘g0” Jadsor) ‘19}0g 
jo ‘ody “19194 

yo jadsoyy ‘aysepry 

sowie “9191 JT 
uyof[ jo 

sopisidq pure jadsor 
¢ OOI "29 


SCULIOF] “1Ι9194 10 Surpovaig 


uyof jo asdAje00dy 


ΑΘ ΠΝ 


(obr) off 
-OOI 9 191]94 jo Suipovroig 
of1-oo1 ‘p9 apn{ 


**  ΟΙΙΞΟΟΙ 


οξτ- 96 (19η1089 {Πα 5504) 
suendssy 01 ὍΟΒ 9450.) 
(¢ 46 ‘96) 56--ξ6 yuswe[D 1 
96-£6 uyof jo ‘oody 

orr-o6 “09 (suOTIIppe 1918] 
1s yA) sapsidy yerojseg 


-++e01-06 


O1I-og (uonsuy) 
oz-6:g91 yey ‘uyof 
Tir ‘uyof 11 πο 1 ‘uyof 
g6-1g 
(αϑηιθ9 Ayqissod) sMmoiq 
-9}1 ‘(sore A[qissod) 19}9g 1 


“++ "96-08 


yoruie yy αν 


10 


2 τ τ τσ σι ΞΘ’ τ Ὁ ΞΘ 15 ------------  -------- ------ 5 5 -- -- 5 


ρομμημο)---Ο 1 ΝΛ GNV AYNLVAALIT JO ATAVL TVOIDOTONOYHO 


16 


17 


OUTLINE OF NEW TESTAMENT CHRISTOLOGY 


ΟΘΙπΟΟῚ 19}0g ΤΙ 


ΙΟΙ-ΘΕῚ snig snuruojuy 
S€1-z€r eqys0g 


oS1-S1 seideg 
Japun yoaer ysimof 


-1eg 


OvI-OZI JUSWIIID 11 


gfi—Lir ueupeyy 
€II-I1I sueysuyD surusad ob1—Lii seuuopzy 
τοῦ uelery, 0} Aug 10 191197 ι 


ΒΘ] ΘΛΉ pue siolsduy jdouy 


blr 
-—99I “D9 (19}0G) {9191 11 
(¢ OST) OQI 729. 1039 TT 
og1-SS1 oyd 
-AIJT, YUM onsoyeiq sunsn{ 


€Sr “σοι 9 ABojody s,unsn{ 


ogi-Shr “09 svideg 
(oL1-S€rx) obi “v9 

ἜΠ94 10 oysuy jo onsojriq 
ΟῚ ‘p92 (ratp1ea 918 syed 


1Π10} yuasoid 571 Ul) seULIOPyT 


(Ltr) 
IgI-ger sapysty jo Asojody 
OgI Ὅ9-Τ ΟῚ ΘΠΌΒΡΙΩ 
1€r ‘ofr seqeuieg 


οὔτ Tole ΠῚ 
19118 , ‘gpnf neg josjy 
Beans (4—-£91 Ῥ) unsn{ 
Bled Τὸ OSL, 
(g€r 4) sapnsuy 
ge1-Sz1 snjeipend) 


1asn ITY 


gzr ‘Scr (urejz1a9 Jou 51 
ajep) snjeipen() 10 Asojody 
olI-ozI 22 [neg jo spy 
(ogI-o1T) 
obI—-OzI “9 19194 jo “σον 
(ofr) ofi—ozr 09 sowel 


off 

—(OOT)OIT “v9 19194 Jo Jadsor) 
L1I-O1l snyeusy 

pue divodjog jo sapisidy 


yoruie yy 


"+ -OQI-OS1 


++ +oSr-obI 


ovi-ofr 


το ΟΡΊΞΟΖΤ 


***OeI-OIl 


panuyuoj—SLNAAT ANV AYNLVAALIT 10 ATXVL TVOISOTONOYHO 


17 


18 HISTORICAL AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES 


Harnack’s chronology of the Apostolic Age given in the first column 
does not represent the judgment of the majority of scholars. The crucial 
point is the date of the accession of Festus as procurator of Judea to succeed 
Felix, the removal of Paul the prisoner from Caesarea to Rome having fol- 
lowed shortly after the arrival of Festus (Acts 25:1, 6, 13, 23; 27:1). The 
question is as to whether Josephus, Tacitus, or Eusebius is to be followed. 
The dates for the recall of Felix and the accession of Festus gathered from 
the works of these historians are as follows: 


Josephus—5 7-61, probably 60. 

Tacitus—s55 

Eusebius—55—-56, according to Jerome’s version of Eusebius’ Chronicle; 
54, according to the Armenian version of Eusebius’ Chronicle. 


(See Votaw, ‘‘Recent Discussion of the Chronology of the Apostolic Age,” 
Biblical World (1898), Vol. XI, pp. 112-19, 177-87.) 

The more common dates for the Pauline letters, after Josephus, are 
about as follows: 


TAD ΠΟΘΙ sc bite paevate aes 52. ROM. τς is sche ee 58 
DISSES 25 00 Ste ae Gh tno ene 53 Phile., Col; and’ Eph ie. eee 62 
CALE Ae, tee rose Ὴ ΗΝ ΠΥ γον ΡΥ ee δὰ ἜΠΗ τ ons nese eee 63 
Wardell Cor; vce ae tee er 57 Pastoral ‘Epistles .:2.2.. a0enee 65-67 


SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY 


Introduction 


SIEGFRIED, CARL. Philo von Alexandria. 1875. 

Drummonp, JAMES. Philo-Judaeus, or the Jewish-Alexandrian Philosophy in 
Its Development and Completion. 1888. 

Licutroort, J. B. The Apostolic Fathers. Part I, 1890; Part II, 1885. 

CHARLES, R. H. The Book of Enoch. 1893. The Assumption of Moses. 1897. 
The Book of Jubilees. 1902. The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs. 1908. 

Harnack, Apotr. Die Chronologie der altchristlichen Litteratur bis Eusebius. 
1897. Spriiche und Reden Jesu. 1907. Eng. trans., The Sayings of Jesus. 
1908. Die Apostelgeschichte. 1908. Eng. trans., The Acts of the Apostles. 
1909. 

McGirFert, ARTHUR C. A History of Christianity in the Apostolic Age. 1897. 

KRrUGER, Gustav. Geschichte der altchristlichen Litteratur. Zweite Auflage. 
1898. Eng. trans., History of Early Christian Literature. 1897. 

Hastincs, JAMES. Dictionary of the Bible. 1898-1904. 

KautzscH, E. Die Apokryphen und Pseudepigraphen des Alten Testaments. 
1898-99. 

CHEYNE AND Brack. Encyclopedia Biblica. 1899-1903. 

18 


OUTLINE OF NEW TESTAMENT CHRISTOLOGY 19 


GEBHARDT, HARNACK, AND ZAHN. Patrum A postolicorum Opera. 1900. 

Morratt, James. The Historical New Testament. τοοι. 

SINGER, ISADORE. Jewish Encyclopedia, got. 

WEIZSACKER, CarRL. Das apostolische Zeitalter der christlichen Kirche. Dritte 
Auflage. 1901. Eng. trans., The Apostolic Age of the Christian Church. 
1894-95. 

Burton, E. D. Principles of Literary Criticism and the Synoptic Problem. 1904. 

WERNLE, Paut. Die Quellen des Lebens Jesu. 1904. Eng. trans., The Sources 
of Our Knowledge of Jesus. 1907. 

Kwnopr, Ruporr. Das nachapostolische Zeitalter: Geschichte der christlichen 
Gemeinden vom Beginn der Flavierdynastie bis zum Ende Hadrians. 1905. 

SopEN, HERMANN von. Urchristliche Litteraturgeschichte. 1905. Eng. trans., 
The History of Early Christian Literature: The Writings of the New 
Testament. 1906. 

WELLHAUSEN, J. Einleitung in die drei ersten Evangelien. 1905. 

Burkitt, Francis C. The Gospel History and Its Transmission. 1906. 

HOoLtzMANN, Oskar. Neutestamentliche Zeitgeschichte. Zweite Auflage. 1906. 

Jiticner, Apotr. Einleitung in das Neue Testament. Fiinfte und sechste, 
neu bearbeitete Auflage. 1906. Eng. trans., Introduction to the New Testa- 
ment. 1904. 

SCHMIEDEL, Paut W. Das vierte Evangelium gegeniiber den drei ersten. 1906. 
Evangelium, Briefe und Ojfenbarung des Johannes. 1906. Eng. trans. of 
both in one vol., The Johannine Writings. 1908. 

ALLEN, WiLLoucHBy C. Commentary on St. Matthew (International Critical 
Commentary). 1907. 

ScHURER, Emit. Geschichte des jiidischen Volkes im Zeitalter Jesu Christ. 
Dritte und vierte Auflage. 1901, 1907. Eng. trans., A History of the Jewish 
People in the Time of Jesus Christ. 1891. 

GoopspEED, E. J. The Epistle to the Hebrews (Bible for Home and School). 
1908. 

WeIss, JOHANNES (editor). Die Schriften des Neuen Testaments. Zweite 
Auflage. 1908. 


Theology 


ΞΡΙΤΤΑ, FrrepRIcH. Christi Predigt an die Geister. 1890. 

Harnack, Apotr. Dogmengeschichte. Dritte Auflage. 1894. Eng. trans., 
History of Dogma. 1894. Das Wesen des Christentums. 1901. Eng. 
trans., What is Christianity? got. 

HoitzMann, Hernricu J. Lehrbuch der neutestamentlichen Theologie. 1897. 
Das messianische Bewusstsein Jesu. 1907. 

Hort, F. J. A. The First Epistle of St. Peter: 1:1—2:17. The Greek Text 
with Introductory Lecture, Commentary, and Additional Notes. 1898. 

Cong, O. Paul: the Man, the Missionary, and the Teacher. 1808. 

STEVENS, GEORGE B. The Theology of the New Testament. 1899. 

19 


20 HISTORICAL AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES 


CLEMEN, CARL. Niedergefahren zu den Toten. 1900. Die Entwicklung der 
christlichen Religion innerhalb des Neuen Testaments. 1908. Religionge- 
schichtliche Erklirung des Neuen Testaments. 1909. 

ΜΌΝΝΙΕΒ, JEAN. La premiére épitre de l'apétre Pierre. 1900. 

HoitzMann, Oskar. Leben Jesu. tgo1. Eng. trans., Life of Jesus. 1904. 

PFLEIDERER, Otto. Das Urchristentum: seine Schriften und Lehren in geschicht- 
lichem Zusammenhang. Zweite Auflage. 1902. Eng. trans. of Band I, 
Primitive Christianity, two vols. 1906, 1909. 

NEUMANN, ARNO. Jesus, wer er geschichtlich war. 1904. Eng. trans., Jesus. 
1906. 

—REvVILLE, ALBERT. Histoire du dogme de la divinité de Jésus-Christ. 3™° ed. 

1904. Eng. trans., History of the Dogma of the Deity of Jesus Christ. 1905. 
WEINEL, H. Paulus: der Mensch und sein Werk. 1904. Eng. trans., δὲ. Paul, 

the Man and His Work. 1906. 

WERNIE, Pau. Die Anfinge unserer Religion. Zweite Auflage. 1904. Eng. 
trans., The Beginnings of Christianity. 1903. 

BAILEY, JOHN W. Does Hellenism Contribute Constituent Elements to Paul’s 
Christology? 1905. 

GRESSMANN, Huco. Der Ursprung der israelitisch-jiidischen Eschatologie. 1905. 

MATHEWS, SHAILER. The Messianic Hope in the New Testament. 1905. 

PFLEIDERER, Otto. The Early Christian Conception of Christ: Its Significance 
and Value in the History of Religion. 1905. 

PorTER, FRANK C. The Messages of the Apocalyptical Writers. 1905. 

BousseEtT, WILHELM. Die Religion des Judentums im neutestamentlichen Zeitalter. 
Zweite Auflage. 1906. Jesus. 1906. Eng. trans., Jesus. 1906. 

SCHWEITZER, ALBERT. Von Reimarus zu Wrede: eine Geschichte der Leben- 
Jesu-Forschung. 1906. 

Scott, Ernest F. The Fourth Gospel; Its Purpose and Theology. 1906. The 
Apologetic of the New Testament. 1907. 

SANDAY, WitiiaAM. The Lije of Christ in Recent Research. 1907. 

WREDE, WILLIAM. Paulus. Zweite Auflage. 1907. Eng. trans., Paul. 1907. 

Causse, A. L’évolution de Vespérance messianique dans le christianisme primitif. 
1908. 

DENNEY, JAMES. Jesus and the Gospel. 1909. 

SHARMAN, Henry B. The Teaching of Jesus about the Future, according to the 
Synoptic Gospels. 1909. 

WEIssS, JOHANNES. Christus: die Anfainge des Dogmas. 1909. 

In so large a field an exhaustive bibliography would be impracticable 
and would probably not be especially useful; hence only a selection of the 
more important books is given. Other good books that have made no 
special contribution to this study are omitted. Periodical literature is not 
given in the list, but articles are referred to in the proper places. 

Mention should be made of some of the books that have been of greatest 

20 


OUTLINE OF NEW TESTAMENT CHRISTOLOGY 21 


service. Both for introduction and for theology McGiffert’s admirable 
Apostolic Age has been extensively used. Stevens’ Theology of the New 
Testament is the best that has yet appeared in English, and the following 
treatment is largely indebted to it. Pfleiderer’s Urchristentum is a work of 
remarkable insight on the theological side, and has been found especially 
useful in the patristic field. Unfortunately it is at present but half acces- 
sible to those who read only English. Wernle’s Beginnings of Christianity 
is vigorous and stimulating. Christus, by Johannes Weiss, is brief but 
valuable. E. F. Scott’s Fourth Gospel and Apologetic of the New Testa- 
ment are masterly, and have been used to great advantage. Harnack’s 
Chronologie is a monumental work and an indispensable storehouse of 
information. Lightfoot has been of service on the Apostolic Fathers. 

However, even in the case of books that have been found most helpful, 
many of their conclusions are rejected in the following pages. 


21 


I. JEWISH MESSIANISM 


Were the subject of our study the personality of Jesus, we should begin 
with Israelitish prophetism instead of Jewish messianism, for Jesus felt 
himself akin to the old prophets, and his prophetic vocation and conscious- 
ness precede and determine his relation to current messianism. But the 
beginnings of the christological world-drama which has played a large 
part in the world’s religious life for more than eighteen hundred years are 
to be found rather in the new world of apocalyptic Judaism which succeeded 
the age of the great Hebrew prophets. 

Early in Israel’s history, when the people thought of their God as “‘a 
man of war” (Exod. 15:2) whose interests were one with his people’s, and 
who fought their battles with them (Num. 10:35), the popular hope was 
directed toward the day of Yahweh, when God himself would come and 
destroy the enemies of Israel and establish his people in peace and pros- 
perity. The prophets of the eighth and succeeding centuries used and 
transformed the popular eschatology in the direction of higher, more 
ethical conceptions of God. For them Yahweh was no longer a god among 
other gods, and his interests were not bound up with Israel and its fate. 
They too looked for a day of Yahweh which would inaugurate a new 
epoch and mean for the enemies of Yahweh vengeance, for all the wicked 
punishment, for Israel sifting, and for the righteous deliverance; and this 
crisis would come through God’s initiative. 

The glorious reigns of David and Solomon left a profound impression 
on the popular mind, and the nation hoped for a restoration of the Davidic 
glory. The hope at first had reference not to an individual Messiah but 
to theocratic kings of the house of David, and the promise of a king of his 
house forever meant a continuation of the Davidic dynasty. But the 
thought passed to that of a personal Messiah, another warrior-king, 
endowed by God with special gifts and powers. This popular, political 
conception persisted far into the Christian era. It was a powerful factor 
in the revolts against Rome. The tumults of the years 44-66 A. D. bear 
witness to the feverish state of the public mind. We meet with the idea 
again and again in the gospels. Any political revolutionist possessing 
qualities of leadership might be enthusiastically received as the Messiah. 
Up to the time of the Bar-Cochba rising men looked for the coming of an 
earthly Messiah. 

But in contact with foreign life there grew up among the Jewish people 
a developed belief in an organized kingdom of demon-powers on the one 
22) 22 


OUTLINE OF NEW TESTAMENT CHRISTOLOGY 2a 


hand, and of angels and heavenly armies on the other, and the result was 
that the messianic hope became transcendental in character. In much of 
the Jewish post-exilic literature elements of the messianic hope appear only 
here and there, but with the Maccabean uprising the hope revived, and from 
that time became part of Jewish patriotism, bursting forth passionately in 
the Psalms of the Pharisees and finding more transcendental expression in 
other apocalyptic literature. 

In the first great apocalypse, the Book of Daniel (167-165 B. c.), it is 
’ God himself who is to overthrow Antiochus and right the wrongs of his 
people. But there appears also the figure of an angel, one like a man, in 
the famous passage: ‘‘I saw in the night-visions, and behold, there came 
with the clouds of heaven one like unto a Son of man, and he came even 
to the Ancient of Days, and they brought him near before him. And 
there was given him dominion, and glory, and a kingdom, that all the 
peoples, nations, and languages should serve him; his dominion is an 
everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom that 
which shall not be destroyed” (7:13, 14). 

In the 17th Psalm of the Pharisees the Messiah is most strikingly 
portrayed. He is Israel’s king, the son of David, who will break in pieces 
them that rule unjustly, purge Jerusalem from them that trample her 
down, thrust out the sinners from the inheritance and utterly destroy their 
proud spirit; but he shall also gather together a holy people whom he 
shall lead in righteousness, and suffer no iniquity to lodge in their midst, 
for he shall take knowledge of them, that they be all the sons of their God. 
He is a righteous king and taught of God. He shall not put his trust in 
horse and rider and bow, for his hope is in God. He himself also is pure 
from sin, so that he may rule a mighty people. He leans upon God, and 
God shall cause him to be mighty through the spirit of holiness. The 
psalms in the first and second chapters of Luke breathe the same spirit; 
there is the same union of political elements with the ethical and religious 
elements in the national hope. 

Advanced apocalyptic presents a more transcendental Messiah. In 
the Book of Enoch the figure of Dan. 7:13, probably symbolic, is trans- 
formed into a half-divine companion of God and angels, who was created 
before heaven and earth and will sit on God’s throne in the coming age to 
judge men and angels. A chief mission of the Messiah in the Psalms of 
the Pharisees, 64-40 B. c., was to make the Jewish people pure and right- 
eous, but in Enoch the Messiah comes to make righteous Israel triumphant.t 
According to Charles (The Book of Enoch, p. 41), ‘‘the influence of Enoch 

τ Cf. Porter, The Messages of the A pocalyptical Writers, p. 329. 

23 


24 HISTORIOAL AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES 


on the New Testament has been greater than that of all the other apocryphal 
and pseudepigraphical books taken together.” 

In Enoch 90:37, 38, written according to Charles in the period 166— 
161 B.C., from the same general standpoint as Daniel, the Messiah is 
grotesquely symbolized as a white bull with large horns, and the people 
who make petition to him are beasts and birds, afterward transformed into 
white oxen. This Messiah is born after the kingdom has been established 
by God, and he becomes head of the messianic community. The passage 
appears to have exercised no influence upon the New Testament. 

But not so the Messiah of the Similitudes (Enoch, chaps. 37-70). 
Charles gives the date 94-79 B. Cc. or 70-64 B. 6. Porter places the passage 
in the latter part of the reign of Herod the Great. In this section the 
Messiah occupies the central place. The kings of.the earth and the strong 
who possess the earth will be afflicted and fall, ‘‘for they have denied the 
Lord of spirits and his Anointed” (48:8-10). At the final judgment the 
Righteous One shall appear before the eyes of the elect righteous (38:1, 2). 
In 53:6 he is called ‘“‘the Righteous and Elect One,” and in many other 
passages ‘‘the Elect One.” But most characteristic is the title ‘“‘Son of 
man,” found here as a definite title for the first time in Jewish literature. 
The oppression of the kings and mighty ones will not long continue, for 
the Head of Days will suddenly appear, and with him another being whose 
countenance has the appearance of a man and whose face is full of gracious- 
ness, like one of the holy angels—the Son of man. He has righteousness 
in an extraordinary degree, will grind to powder the teeth of the sinners 
and put down kings from their thrones because they do not extol and 
praise him (46:1-5). In him dwells the spirit of wisdom and the spirit 
of him who gives knowledge (49:3). He rules over all (62:6). He is the 
revealer of all things (46:3). ‘‘And from henceforth there will be nothing 
that is corruptible; for the Son of man has appeared and sits on the throne 
of his glory, and all evil will pass away before his face and depart; but the 
word of the Son of man will be strong before the Lord of Spirits” (69:29). 
Men and angels will be judged before him, and the word of his mouth will 
slay all the sinners (62:2). ‘‘He will be a staff to the righteous on which 
they will support themselves and not fall, and he will be the light of the 
gentiles and the hope of those who are troubled of heart” (48:4). He 
is to be their companion forever (62:14). His pre-existence is plainly 
taught : “ For this reason has he been chosen and hidden before him before 
the creation of the world and for evermore. And the wisdom of the Lord 
of Spirits has revealed him to the holy and righteous, for he preserveth the 
lot of the righteous, because they have hated and despised this world of 

24 


OUTLINE OF NEW TESTAMENT CHRISTOLOGY 25 


unrighteousness, and have hated all its works and ways in the name of 
the Lord of Spirits: for they are saved in his name and he is the avenger 
of their life” (48:6, 7). 

In the Jewish Sibylline Oracles, an Alexandrian production the oldest 
portion of which was written ca. 140 B. C., the messianic element is strong: 
God will send a king to bring peace upon the earth by destroying God’s 
enemies and fulfilling the promises to his children; then will be established 
a universal kingdom with Jerusalem as its theocratic center. In the 
description of the approach of the kingdom of God in the Assumption of 
Moses, of about the beginning of the Christian era, there is no mention of 
the messianic king, and again he does not appear in the joyous days to come 
after Israel’s repentance in the Book of Jubilees. In his description of the 
messianic age Philo appears to include the messianic king (De Praemiis 
et Poenis 16)- ‘The Apocalypses of Baruch and Ezra witness to the per- 
sistence of the hope after the destruction of the holy city and temple. 
In the Apocalypse of Ezra, written go-1oo A. D., the Messiah introduces 
and rules over the millennial earthly kingdom, but God himself will be the 
final judge (chap. 7). The Messiah is pre-existent—‘‘kept unto the end” 
(12:32), “‘kept a great season”’ (13:26). 

The dominant note of the religious life of Judaism in the period we 
have been studying was the conviction that God had given his people a 
law, and the one work of the pious Jew was the observance of that law. 
But the rewards of such observance were in the future, and the hope of a 
better future was ever the faith-element in the religious consciousness of 
Israel. This hope assumed different forms. Alongside of belief in an 
earthly, Davidic Messiah there entered the idea of a heavenly world-ruler 
and representative of God, who sits on the throne of glory and holds judg- 
ment over sinners. In general it may be said that the Messiah was earthly 
and the Son of man heavenly. The Son of man might be called the Messiah, 
but he could not be the Son of David; that is to say, a descendant of David 
would hardly be described as an angelic being. For the Son of man was 
superhuman, and as everything valuable was supposed to have previously 
existed in heaven, he was a pre-existent being (Enoch 46:1-3; 48:3, 6; 
49:2-4; 62:7). There was therefore nothing fixed in the conception 
of the Messiah. The significant fact is that before Jesus came the materials 
for a Christology were already present in the messianic hopes and con- 
ceptions of his countrymen, and when he gained world-significance and 
the Jewish concepts proved inadequate to express what men experienced 
in him, new materials were at hand in the gentile world; hence the rapid 
development of a rich Christology. 

25 


II. THE MESSIANISM OF JESUS 


In the present state of gospel-criticism it is not possible to set forth 
with precision the attitude of Jesus toward the current messianism. We 
have ample means of judging what impression he made upon others, but 
before we can arrive with historical assurance at Jesus’ own thought, the 
documentary sources of the Synoptic Gospels and the mutual relationships 
of these sources must be more conclusively determined and evaluated. It 
now appears that there are more than two relatively independent and 
quite different sources. One of them, which is essentially our Gospel 
of Mark, is probably not without Pauline influence, and is in general so 
largely a developed expression of the faith of primitive Christians as to 
demand critical treatment; it has also been influenced textually by Matthew 
and Luke. It is interpretation as well as narrative, opening with the 
words, possibly a title: ‘‘Beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.” In 
its present form it was written after 70 A.D. The remaining material 
common to Matthew and Luke, consisting mainly of discourses and 
sayings of Jesus, has been generally referred to a single, homogeneous 
source, and this error has to some extent vitiated a vast amount of other- 
wise valuable criticism. The sayings and discourses of Jesus that find 
their way into Matthew and Luke were probably gathered into groups 
in Aramaic in Palestine before the destruction of Jerusalem. Intended 
for the Christian community, they are not directly affected by apologetic 
interests. 

The impression made by the Gospel of Mark, critically considered, 
is that during the first part of his ministry, although possessed of an intimate 
knowledge of God and conscious of being intrusted with a great mission 
and endowed with divine power, Jesus did not lay claim to messiahship; 
at Caesarea Philippi he accepted the confession of his disciples to his 
messiahship, and from that time he called himself the Son of man and 
proclaimed the parousia. In the discourse-sources messiahship 1s assumed 
throughout; it comes to more definite expression in-the Temptation and 
in Matt. 11:25-27 (Luke 10:21, 22), and in connection with the announce- 
ment of the parousia toward the close he puts forth the claim that he will 
come as king and judge. In many instances in these discourses and 
sayings the personality of Jesus stands out prominently. It is clear, 
accordingly, that our sources bear emphatic witness to messiahship as an 
element in the self-consciousness of Jesus, but it is equally evident that they 
26) 26 


OUTLINE OF NEW TESTAMENT CHRISTOLOGY vail | 


tend to throw into the forefront of his message the ethical and religious 
element, and remove to the background of his thought or eliminate alto- 
gether much of the eschatological coloring of the gospels as they now stand. 
Certainly the eschatological terminology and views of the age appear in 
these sources, and it is not always easy to determine to what extent Jesus 
shared in such conceptions, but the emphasis upon his prophetic vocation 
is unmistakable. 

It would appear, then, that in the mind of Jesus his prophetic character 
was of primary significance. From the time of the Baptism he was con- 
scious of a special mission; he had seen a vision of God, the heavenly 
Father, and his whole nature, emotional, reflective, and volitional, was 
powerfully stirred. His conception of his special mission is best expressed 
in the text at Nazareth (Luke 4:18, 19). He believed himself to be a 
teacher, a reformer, a prophet—and more than a prophet, the final mes- 
senger of God to men. .Under these circumstances it was inevitable that 
he face the question of messiahship. It was in the air. With a mission 
distinct from that of the Baptist, a full knowledge of the Father, a work for 
the kingdom not only preparatory, but actually initiating the new age, 
he could not but accept the thought of messiahship. The incident at 
Caesarea Philippi, the reply to the question of the Baptist, the entry into 
Jerusalem, the confession at the trial, and above all the unanimous con- 
viction of the disciples, it would seem, immediately after the resurrection, 
leave little room for doubt that Jesus believed that he was the Messiah. 
The prophetic consciousness related to what he was, the messianic to 
what he was to become, if indeed such a distinction is permissible. 

It is clear, however, that he advanced the claim with great reserve. 
Neither the popular terrestrial and political nor the literary supra-mundane 
conceptions of the Messiah fitted in exactly with his inner convictions. 
The political réle he rejected outright. The eschatological he appears to 
have accepted in part. Unless it be involved in the thought of messiahship 
and in the use of the title Son of man, there is no trace of any consciousness 
of pre-existence. If in his last hours, when his work was cut short by the 
forces of opposition to God’s kingdom, he spoke of returning in glory, as 
seems to have been the case, it was a messianic expression of his faith that 
God’s cause must finally triumph and his own work receive vindication. 
With this interpretation of his messianic consciousness his use of titles is in 
general agreement. Titles suggesting the political aspect of messianism, 
such as ‘“‘Son of David,” made no appeal to him, and if he did not in every 
instance positively reject them, it was only because such rejection would have 
been interpreted as a rejection of messiahship. ‘Son of God” as a title 

27 


28 HISTORICAL AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES 


would seem not to have been used by him as a self-designation, yet as 
much is involved in the recurring expressions “‘the Son” and ‘‘the Father;”’ 
his sonship was personal, moral, and religious, and in the accounts as 
they stand there is the implication of something more. His most frequent 
self-designation seems to have been ‘‘Son of man.” He is never represented 
as having been so addressed by others. Both the Old Testament con- 
ception of man’s frailty and lowly estate and the influential passage in 
Daniel (7:13, 14) may have been factors leading to the choice of the title. 
That he was influenced strongly by the high apocalyptic use in the Book 
of Enoch is not clear, though it is certain that his followers came to attach 
that meaning to the term in application to Jesus, with all that it involved. 
Jesus appears to have used the title mostly toward the close of his career, 
suggesting that then his consciousness assumed more strongly the messianic 
form. It came to mean for him that the messianic glory was to be obtained 
by renunciation, suffering, and death. 

It is not assumed that the above sketch even remotely does justice to 
the subject, but the problem is too intricate to justify at this point a satis- 
factory exhibit of the processes by which the conclusions have been reached, 
or final judgment has been withheld, as the case may be. The gospels 
will again come before us for consideration in this discussion. Certain 
results of criticism may be confidently set forth and the direction in which 
they point indicated. The recognition of Matthew and Luke as composite 
works, one of whose sources is the Gospel of Mark, enables us to discover 
many heightened christological features of Matthew and Luke, and 
throws us back upon the simpler presentations of Mark and the other 
sources. Yet here too we must bear in mind that the writers of these 
sources were not especially interested in historical sequence and connec- 
tion, but were concerned to awaken and foster faith in Jesus as the Christ 
and to secure obedience to him as Lord. The eschatological discourses 
of Mark, chap. 13, Matt., chap. 24, and Luke, chap. 21, seem to have 
taken their present form not earlier than 70 A. D., and there is much else 
in the discourse-material that bears marks of later origin. For example, 
one passage in which the speaker is the Wisdom of God appears to be a 
prophetic fragment from some Wisdom-writing of about 70 A. D. (Luke 
11:49-51; Matt. 23:34, 35). There is specific mention of the murder 
of Zachariah, son of Barachiah, whom Josephus mentions as having been 
slain in the temple in 68 A.p. Certain passages bear indications of origin 
within the Jewish-Christian community. Side by side with passages of 
great spiritual freedom there are in Matthew expressions of narrowness 
and circumscribed sympathy that sound strange in the mouth of Jesus— 

28 


OUTLINE OF NEW TESTAMENT CHRISTOLOGY 29 


a high valuation of the law, an express limitation of his mission to the 
Jews, a command to obey the Jewish leaders (Matt. 5:18, 19; 10:5, 6; 
23:3). The emphasis especially in Matthew on eschatology—on Jesus 
as the coming king and judge and the Twelve as judges of the twelve tribes 
of Israel in the regeneration—is, as we shall see when we treat of that topic, 
so in line with the messianism of Jewish Christianity that we hesitate to 
carry it all back to Jesus himself. Justice must be done to the unique 
religious genius and moral power of Jesus, of which there can be no reason- 
able doubt. Constant factors in all estimates of his thought and person 
should be the effects of his coming and the influence he exerted. But when 
criticism has eliminated much that is fantastic and traceable to other 
sources than his own thought, it yet leaves in his consciousness a mysterious 
element that may properly be called messianic: there are mighty stirrings 
and strivings in his soul, there is a spirit of exaltation and expectancy, 
there is the conviction of a unique vocation as God’s last messenger to men. 
It is not enough to say that the title Messiah was imposed upon him by 
historical conditions and was something altogether external to him; it 
answered, to be sure inadequately, to something in his own consciousness. 
In the impressive language of H. J. Holtzmann,' as his forerunner John 
was a prophet and more than a prophet, so he was the Messiah and more 
than a Messiah. 

There were other features in the overmastering personality of Jesus 
that influenced christological doctrine in the course of its development, 
but an adequate presentation of these would involve us in an extended 
historical study and estimate of Jesus for which there is here no place. 
Suffice it to recall his consciousness of filial relationship to God which lies 
at the root of his messianic consciousness and behind all his activity, the 
universalism at the heart of his message and work, his extraordinary dignity 
and authority lifting him above past and contemporary religious authorities, 
and the ideal of life he held up and enjoined with all of its social implica- 
tions, and the abiding spiritual impression of his personal character. 


t Das messianische Bewusstsein Jesu, S. 100. 


29 


ΠΙ. JEWISH-CHRISTIAN CHRISTOLOGY 


The sources for our study of Jewish-Christian Christology are the 
genuine epistles of Paul, the early chapters of Acts, and the Synoptic 
Gospels, all-of which must be used with critical caution. . We possess no 
literature that is directly the product of the faith of the earliest Christians. 
The former habit of so employing the First Epistle of Peter and the Epistle 
of James and of handling the first chapters of Acts uncritically is not 
justified, as will appear when we come to consider these works. 

A good starting-point is the passage in which Paul sets forth explicitly 
the contents of the tradition which he received: ‘‘For I delivered to you 
first of all that which I myself had received: that Christ died for our sins 
according to the scriptures, and that he was buried, and that he was raised 
on the third day according to the scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, 
then to the Twelve. Afterwards he appeared to more than five hundred 
brethren at one time, most of whom remain until now but some have gone 
to their rest. After that he appeared to James, then to all the apostles. 
And last of all, as to one born at a wrong time, he appeared to me also” 
(I Cor. 15:3-8). We here note several elements of Jewish-Christian 
Christology. 

1. Jesus is the Christ. This Paul assumes. To be sure Paul uses 
the word ‘“‘Christ” in this instance without the article as a proper name, 
for when the Hebrew mya, ‘“‘ Anointed,” was translated into Greek, 
χριστός, the original Hebrew idea of the Messiah meant little to gentile 
Christians and χριστός became a proper name. In some instances it is not 
clear in which sense it is used. But its significance for Jewish-Christian 
Christology is that the earliest interpretation of the person and work of 
Jesus was through messiahship. 

Indeed the first impression that Jesus made was that of a prophet; 
he was the prophet like Moses promised in Deut. 18:18, 19: ‘‘I will raise 
them up a prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee; and I will 
put my words in his mouth, and he shall speak unto them all that I shall 
command him. And it shall come to pass, that whosoever will not hearken 
unto my words which he shall speak in my name, I will require it of him.” 
This passage is quoted in Acts 3:22, 23. But there was for them one 
higher category than that of prophet; Jesus was the Messiah. We have 
seen that the question of Jesus’ own thought on this subject is beset with 
difficulties, but the readiness with which his disciples accepted and pro- 
90] 80 


OUTLINE OF NEW TESTAMENT CHRISTOLOGY 51 


claimed his messiahship renders it almost inconceivable that he gave them 
no grounds for so doing. These men had known Jesus in the flesh, had 
eaten and drank with him, and now they revered him as Messiah and 
Lord and thought of him as the coming Judge. 

When Jesus was thought of in the messianic framework, his speedy 
return from heaven to complete his messianic work took the place of the 
first manifestation of the Messiah in Jewish eschatology. In the appear- 
ance of Jesus upon earth the new era had already dawned, but his work 
had been cut short and he would soon appear on the clouds of heaven 
for the destruction of Satan, the god of this world, and of the kingdom 
of darkness, and for the deliverance of his people. Paul received from the 
primitive tradition—‘‘by the word of the Lord””—how those that are alive, 
that are left unto the coming (παρουσίαν) of the Lord, shall in no wise 
precede them that are fallen asleep, etc. (I Thess. 4:15 ff.). Under the 
inspiration of early Christian prophetism pictures of the future were painted 
like those of Paul (such as in I Cor. 15:55 ff.), of the Apocalypse of John, 
and of the Synoptic Gospels. At the common meal in which the fellow- 
ship of the brethren came to expression the thoughts of all were centered 
upon the Savior and especially upon his glorious return. 

2. Christ died for men’s sins. The representation in Acts is that in the 
primitive Christian community the acceptance of Jesus as the Christ 
brought with it the forgiveness of sins, but in the passage before us a further 
step is taken when connection is made between Christ’s death and men’s 
release from sin. Paul’s language at this point is not to be taken as in 
itself conclusive, but there is every probability that very early the disciples 
were not content with the assurance that the death of Jesus had been 
foretold in the Scriptures, but that being familiar with the conception of 
atonement by the shedding of blood, they regarded his death in the aspect 
of a sacrifice offered to God. In IV Macc. 6:27-29 the idea appears 
that the martyrdom of the righteous has atoning merit. 

3. Jesus was raised from the dead on the third day and appeared to 
his disciples on the six occasions mentioned. The first recorded appearance 
was to Peter, of which we seem to have a hint in our earliest gospel (Mark 
16:7). The last appearance was to Paul himself, and is not referred to 
by him as being in a different class from the others. Something of the 
character of this appearance to Paul may be inferred from his references 
elsewhere to the revelation of Christ that was made to him. In I Cor. 
9:1 he exclaims: ‘“‘Am I not an apostle? Have I not seen Jesus our 
Lord?” In Gal. 1:15, 16 he says: God ‘“‘saw fit... . to reveal his 
Son in me.”’ We have an indirect reference in II Cor. 4:6: ‘‘God.... 

31 


82 ; HISTORICAL AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES 


shone in upon our hearts, to give the illumination of the knowledge of the 
glory of God on the face of Christ.’”” Elsewhere he speaks of “‘visions and 
revelations of the Lord” (ὀπτασίας καὶ ἀποκαλύψεις κυρίου) subsequently 
received (II Cor. 12:1). The view of Pfleiderer that Paul did not in his 
own mind connect these appearances with the body of Jesus that was 
laid in the grave seems highly improbable.t Note the words: ‘‘He was 
raised on the third day.” For Paul these appearances were special and 
unique. What we may infer from the references of Paul, both as to the 
nature of the appearance to him and consequently as to the nature of the 
appearances to others that preceded his, is another question. 

With this testimony from our primary source there is no room for 
reasonable doubt as to the reality of these appearances, both those to 
individuals and those to groups. Our other sources—the gospels and 
Acts—are in agreement with Paul that through some such experiences 
the disciples became convinced that Jesus had risen, and that the primitive 
Christian community came into being in consequence of that faith. We 
recall from the gospels that in that world and age men could see in such 
a one as Jesus, John the Baptist, Elijah, or one of the prophets actually 
reappearing on earth (Mark 6:14-16; 8:28). In Matt. 27:52, 53 it is 
reported that at the death of Jesus “‘the tombs were opened, and many 
bodies of the saints that had fallen asleep were raised, and coming forth 
out of the tombs after his resurrection they entered into the holy city and 
appeared unto many.” The personality of Jesus made an impression on 
the hearts and lives of his disciples that was ineffaceable. He bound them 
to him by a love so strong that even his death could not separate him from 
them. Their faith took the historically conditioned form that was natural 
to it. 

Our sources then give, as the ground for the change from the gloom 
and despair of the crucifixion to the joy and confidence that soon succeeded, 
the appearances of the risen Lord, although the exact content of the resur- 
rection-faith is not as clearly set forth as the fact itself. The preparation 
for these experiences consisted in the general world-view and the impres- 
sions of the personal life of Jesus. For Paul the resurrection meant that 
Jesus had conquered death and opened the gates of life, and he gave 
to it also a mystical significance (I Cor., chap. 15; Rom., chap. 6). But 
for the first community the resurrection of Jesus meant the vindication 
of his messiahship (Mark 12:10, 11; Acts 3:15) and a means toward his 
heavenly exaltation. The elevation of man to the sphere of the gods was 
a thought not strange to circles even outside of Judaism. To specify 

τ Das Urchristentum, I, S. 5 (Primitive Christianity, I, p. 7). 

32 


OUTLINE OF NEW TESTAMENT CHRISTOLOGY 33 


only Hebrew instances, there were Enoch (Sir. 44:16; 49:14), Moses 
(Assumption of Moses), and Elijah (II Kings 2:11). The significance of 
the resurrection and exaltation of Jesus in the interpretation of his person 
may be gathered from the following passages: 

Jesus said to the disciples on the way to Emmaus: ‘‘What things ?” 
And they said to him: “ὙΠῸ things concerning Jesus the Nazarene, who 
was a prophet (ἀνὴρ προφήτης) mighty in deed and word before God and 
all the people; and how our chief priests and rulers delivered him up to be 
condemned to death and crucified him. We hoped however that it was 
he who was about to redeem Israel” (Luke 24:19-21). 

“This Jesus God raised up, of which we are all witnesses. Being 
exalted therefore at the right hand of God and having received from the 
Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, he has poured forth this which you 
see and hear. For David ascended not into the heavens, but he says 
himself: 

The Lord said to my Lord: 
Sit at my right hand, 
Till I lay thine enemies under thy feet. 


So let all the house of Israel know assuredly that God has made him both 
Lord and Christ—this Jesus whom you crucified” (Acts 2:32-36). 

““You know of the matter that came through all Judea... . Jesus 
of Nazareth, how God anointed him with the Holy Spirit and power, and 
he went about doing good and healing all that were oppressed by the devil, 
for God was with him .... whom they slew... . him God raised 
up on the third day and gave him to be made manifest... . . This is 
he who is ordained (ὡρισμένος) by God, judge of living and dead” (Acts 
FO. 97 42). 

“And we bring you good tidings of the promise made to the fathers, 
that God has fulfilled this to our children by raising up Jesus, as also it is 
written in the second psalm: Thou art my Son; to-day have I begotten 
tee: (Acts 13°32, 33). 

To these passages must be added two from Paul, in one of which he 
says that Jesus was constituted (δρισθέντος) Son of God with power 
according to the spirit of holiness by the resurrection from the dead (Rom. 
1:4), and the second is in the great christological passage, most of which is 
characteristically Pauline: ‘‘Wherefore God also highly exalted him 
and gave him the name which is above every name”—the name of Lord 
(Phil. 2:9-11; κύριος, for FTI" in the Septuagint; see Isa. 42:8; 45:23). 

Now these passages clearly point toward an original Adoptionist 
Christology: Jesus became the Son of God and Messiah by a divine act 

33 


34 HISTORICAL AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES 


of adoption connected with the resurrection from the dead and the exaltation 
to heaven at God’s nght hand. The use of the second psalm is instructive. 
From ancient times in the Orient kings were regarded gods or of divine 
origin. Amid the plottings of the rulers of the earth against Yahweh and 
against his Anointed, God gives assurance to the king on the day of his 
accession to the throne that he will give nations for his inheritance and the 
uttermost parts of the earth for his possession. When the passage is 
quoted in the Epistle to the Hebrews the thought of the writer can hardly 
be that the divine sonship of Jesus began at some particular time (Heb. 
1:5), but the earlier view was that the divine sonship of Jesus was not 
by nature and from eternity, but that he was raised to it by an act of God. 
In the gospel-tradition there was the story how God had already chosen 
him as his Son at the Baptism and by the descent of the Spirit consecrated 
him the Messiah and endowed him with messianic power, and still later 
the divine act was pushed back to his birth. In the Lukan account of 
the Baptism, Codex D, the very words of Ps. 2:7 occur (Luke 3:22). 
Old Testament analogies are the anointings of Saul and of David by 
Samuel (I Sam. 10:1; 16:13), in each instance a period elapsing before 
accession to the throne, as in the case of Jesus. It is evident that the hope 
of establishing an earthly Davidic kingdom was still in some sense alive 
in Jewish-Christian circles. The Palestinian hymns of the first chapters 
of Luke breathe the same spirit. The genealogies of Matthew and Luke, 
giving the list of ancestors of Jesus in direct line from David to Joseph, 
were intended to prove that Jesus was the Messiah. Paul knows the 
tradition—‘born of the seed of David according to the flesh” (Rom. 
1:3). In discussing with the scribes Jesus seems to have tried to show 
that the Messiah need not necessarily be a descendant of David, though 
this is certainly not the thought of the evangelist who reports the incident 
(Mark 12:35). 

But this Adoptionist Christology does not represent the whole thought 
of the Jewish-Christian community regarding Jesus. Paul makes use of 
the doctrine of the pre-existence of Christ as though it were already familiar. 
It was easily taken over from messianism. We have seen how in the Simili- 
tudes of Enoch (37-70) the Son of man is described as hidden with God 
before the world was and manifested as judge of men and angels. The 
idea was that precious persons and things were of heavenly origin, and 
everything of real value that appeared on earth had its existence in heaven 
(Exod. 25:9; 45; 26:30;) 27:83) Num. (8:45)\Ps: 1309245, ΤΟΙ Galena 
26; Heb. 12:22; Apoc. 21:2). On the other hand, the Greek conception 
of pre-existence was based on the contrast between spirit and matter and 

34 


OUTLINE OF NEW TESTAMENT CHRISTOLOGY 835 


pre-temporal existence was deemed a certainty only in the case of higher 
and purer spirits. It cannot be said that the notion of a pre-existent 
Messiah was widespread in Judaism or that it played a large part. Cer- 
tainly the thought of the first disciples was quite different from Paul’s, for 
the Jewish conception of the Messiah’s appearance on earth was neither 
that of an incarnation nor of a humiliation. But undoubtedly in identify- 
ing Jesus with the Son of man of Jewish apocalyptic the first disciples ἡ, 
were bordering closely upon the idea that he was not merely a man who 
had been exalted to heavenly glory, but was originally a heavenly being 
who had come down to earth. ; 

4. The Old Testament scriptures were used as foreshadowing both the 
death and the resurrection of Christ. Doubtless the passages appealed 
to as foretelling his suffering and death were those telling of the suffering 
Servant of Yahweh (Isa., chaps. 52, 53; cf. Acts 8:30 ff.). The stumbling- 
block of his death could be removed, if, in addition to his resurrection 
and exaltation, proof were adduced that the sufferings and death of Christ 
were in accord with the Old Testament vocation of the Messiah and 
founded in the counsel of God. The passage used as foretelling his 
resurrection may very well have been Ps. 16:10, as found in Peter’s sermon, 
Acts 2:27, and also in the mouth of Paul at Antioch of Pisidia, Acts 13:35. 
Other passages that may have been used in this connection are Ps. 86:13 
and Hos. 6:2. 

But not only were the death and resurrection found in the Old Testa- 
ment but almost everything else in the evangelic tradition.t Of course it 
worked the other way also: what was in the Old. Testament must have 
been in the life of Jesus. Accordingly it is to be expected that some material. 
which found its way into the gospels had its beginnings in primitive 
Christianity. 

We close this section with some reflections on the significance of Jewish- 
Christian Christology. We have seen that in Judaism along with devotion 
to their divinely given law there was the faith-element of the messianic 
hope. Among the early Christians the latter element eclipsed the former. 
In Paul’s account of the controversy about the law recorded in the second 
chapter of Galatians he takes it as common ground that all who believed 
on Christ Jesus did so in order that they might be justified by faith in 
Christ, but it had never occurred to his Jewish-Christian opponents that 
faith in Christ entirely set aside the Jewish law and abolished legalism. 
To their minds this would make Christ a minister of sin. To them it 

τ For instance, the parousia was seen in Zech. 12:10: ‘They shall look unto me 


whom they have pierced,”’ quoted in Apoc. 1:7. 
35 


80 HISTORICAL AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES 


was not a question of faith in Jesus or observance of the law. Their hope 
was really not in the law but in the Lord at his coming. Faith in Jesus 
and hope of the kingdom were working a change of attitude. The story 
of Stephen in Acts points toward a larger freedom and a deeper insight 
into the implications of the gospel on the part especially of converts among 
the Hellenists. 

The thinking and preaching of the first disciples were not primarily 
concerned with the gospel of the fatherliness of God, prominent in the 
teaching of Jesus. Theirs was another problem. They must prove to 
their countrymen that Jesus was the Messiah, and would shortly return to 
establish the kingdom. His crucifixion was the obstacle in the way, but 
that was foreshadowed by Scripture and its force destroyed by the resurrec- 
tion. For them Jesus was the Servant of God, a man approved of God, 
constituted the Christ, raised from the tomb, exalted in the heavens, to 
come again to complete the messianic work. The miracle of the resur- 
rection and his exaltation cast a halo about his earthly life, removing him 
from men and investing his person with mystery. Looking toward the 
future they made him the center of their eschatology, the chief part of 
which they drew from Jewish apocalyptic. They were attempting to 
express what they had experienced in Jesus, and their expression was more 
prophetic and practical than doctrinal. Their own state was one of 
ecstasy and exaltation, one of their charismata from the heavenly world 
being ‘‘speaking with tongues,” described by Paul in I Cor., chap. 14; 
and they beheld Jesus as their risen and exalted Lord. 

We often meet with the statement that in this period the Christians were 
nothing more than a Jewish sect,’ and that their Christology was nothing 
more than the framework of Jewish messianism with the name of Jesus 
written in it. Thus Wernle concludes: ‘‘The Jewish faith swallowed up 
the Christian, and in reality it was the Jews who came forth the conquerors 
from these disputes.’’? Of course it is true that the Christian movement was 
within Judaism; that as Jesus never intended to found a ‘“‘church,” that 
is, an institution, so the early Jerusalem disciples remained members 
of the Jewish church, and to them the idea of two churches was an impos- 
sible one. Their aim was to convince other Jews that Jesus was their 
Messiah. In this sense the Christian community formed a Jewish sect, 
but it was something more. Although Jesus had in his own thought 


t For example, Clemen, Die Entwicklung der christlichen Religion innerhalb des 
Neuen Testaments, S. 74. 
2 Die Anfdnge unserer Religion, erste Auflage, 5. 85 (The Beginnings of 
Christianity, I, p. 141). 
36 


OUTLINE OF NEW TESTAMENT CHRISTOLOGY 37 


transformed, purified, spiritualized, and enriched the term Messiah in its 
application to himself, yet his disciples did not in this respect altogether 
understand him, and after his death the older elements were retained’ in 
the term. Nevertheless there was much involved in thinking of Jesus 
in the messianic framework. The resurrection of the Messiah was not an 
element in Jewish messianism because he was not expected to die.t Another 
new element was the redemptive significance of his death. The second 
coming simply corresponded to the messianic first coming. So far all 
seems formal. But related to it all there was a rich religious experience 
that was new and creative. There was something tangible and concrete 
about a Christ who had actually lived among men, who had been raised 
from the dead, had been seen in his glorified state, and to whom (or through 
whom) one could pray, as did Stephen, according to the testimony of 
Acts, in the words: ‘‘Lord Jesus, receive my spirit” (Acts 7:59). Through 
the presence and power of the Spirit that Jesus sent down from heaven 
there was an enthusiastic life, a joyousness, an assurance of acquittal at 
the coming judgment, a faith-principle, that current, somber, depressing 
Judaism conspicuously lacked. 

The noblest and truest expression of their new experience of Jesus the 
Christ was to be seen in their preparation for the kingdom, the new order 
about to be established at the Lord’s return. This preparation consisted 
of repentance and righteousness, but essentially it was a social phenomenon, 
a real brotherhood. The poor were relieved by means of a common 
fund. The Lord’s Supper—‘‘the breaking of bread,” Acts 2:42, 46— 
was a fellowship-meal. Through this practical Christian brotherhood 
Jesus, the helper of the helpless, the friend of sinners, the refuge of 
the heavy-laden, came to his own, and thereby Christianity conquered 
the world.2. Beneath the thought-forms of the primitive church which 
have been occupying our attention there lies the gospel, and in the 
experience of these first disciples was manifested the practical Christian 
life. 

Moreover we must not forget that the primitive Christian community 
possessed the priceless tradition of Jesus’ own imperishable words and 
deeds. Narrowness and legalism were far from being hopeless for those 
who possessed a measure of his spirit and the memory of his words and 
conduct. Indeed, it is by no means incredible that one of the number, 
Stephen, should have come near to grasping the very heart-principle of 


t Yet see Apoc. of Ezra 7:29. 
2See Pfleiderer, Das Urchristentum, 1, S. 22, 23 (Primitive Christianity, If, 
Dp: 32). 
37 


88 HISTORICAL AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES 


the gospel, Christian freedom; and, because he proclaimed it, to have 
brought martyrdom upon himself and persecution upon the other disciples. 
Had primitive Christianity been nothing more than a sect of Judaism, Paul 
the Pharisee would not have been found so zealously persecuting it, nor 
would he have been powerfully converted to a religion that was essentially 
the same as that which he held. 


IV. PAULINE CHRISTOLOGY 


The letters upon which this treatment is based are Galatians, First 
and Second Corinthians, Romans, First Thessalonians, Philippians, and 
Philemon. Others are reserved for later consideration. In these letters 
there is found no development in his conception of Christ of which it is 
necessary to take account. The first of the letters to be written, whether 
First Thessalonians or Galatians, was written not far from a score of 
years after his conversion, and all of them fall within a period of twelve years. 
He was at the time a mature man, aged somewhere between forty-five 
and sixty-five. Varying circumstances elicited differing forms of expres- 
sion, but for him there was one original gospel. 

Four factors in the formation of his Christology may be mentioned, 
but not always distinguished: pre-Pauline Christian thought, Jewish 
thought, gentile’ thought, and his own’ creative personality. No more 
original and influential thinker has appeared in the history of the Christian 
church. Yet his primary purpose was not to give Christianity doctrinal 
expression, but to preach Christ; he was first a missionary, and secondly 
a theologian. His epistles were called forth by the exigencies of his mis- 
sionary work and adapted to the needs of the churches. Vital as was his 
conception of the person of Christ in his apprehension of Christianity, his 
Christology was with a view to Soteriology, and must be studied from that 
point of view. But he has a Christology that is original and thought out, 
because he was powerfully intellectual; he felt the true theologian’s necessity 
for harmonizing convictions growing out of his religious experience with 
the rest of his thought which he held in common with the age. To this 
fundamental need of his nature is added the fact of his rabbinical training. 
Though he was more than a rabbinic dialectician, still it is essential to 


τ It is now generally recognized among scholars that the Pastoral Epistles are in 
their present form not from the hand of Paul. Second Thessalonians and Ephesians 
are regarded as doubtful, especially the latter. The tendency at present is to defend 
the Pauline authorship of Colossians. Most scholars do not take seriously the conten- 
tion of a few critics that all the Pauline letters belong to a later time. 


2 The fact is that Paul comes near being the only perfectly clear figure among 
the Christians of the first century. Both the immediate disciples of Jesus and the 
Christians of the age succeeding Paul are more or less shadowy. We have seen how 
difficult of historical access is Jesus himself, though on account of his dominating 
personality and universalism Jesus does stand out before us as not even Paul does. 
The point is that for Paul we possess direct sources. See Wrede, Paulus, S. 1, 2 
(Eng. trans., pp. xi, xii). 

39] 39 


40 HISTORICAL AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES 


remember that his education was Jewish; he knew the Hebrew scriptures, 
though he generally quotes from the Septuagint; he was trained in Jewish 
theology and rabbinical methods of interpretation. So while in the Jewish- 
Christian church certain conclusions about Jesus had been reached through 
reflection and in recommending him to the Jews, chiefly in connection with 
his messiahship and its corollaries, yet no such man as Paul had arisen who 
felt the necessity upon him of thinking things through theologically and 
who had the ability to do so. 

A third factor in the situation ought, however, not to be underestimated: 
he was a Hellenist as well as a Pharisee. His knowledge of the Greek 
language and Greek Bible is in itself a matter of great importance. His 
native city of Tarsus was a university city and a seat of Stoicism. Under 
these circumstances a universal horizon and a broad and human interest 
were almost inevitable for such a man as Paul. This side of his nature 
was brought out when he became not only a Jew to the Jews but a Greek 
to the Greeks and took up his work among gentiles. He had not only to 
discuss daily in synagogue and market-place with Jews (Acts 17:17), but 
also to take account of Paganism and adapt his message to the heathen. 
Philosophic Hellenism had its conviction of the supremacy of the spirit, its 
desire for freedom from the sensuous, its ideals of exaltation above the 
world and of communion with the divine life, its belief in immortality; 
and while Paul did not as a scholar know Greek philosophy, yet to the 
Greek world he did successfully minister. 

It was Paul’s repeated and earnest contention that he derived his 
gospel from no human source, but from the revelation of God’s Son in him; 
from God and Christ he received his apostleship and authority to preach, 
and the very content of his preaching as well (Gal. 1:1, 11, 12; 2:8; 
I Cor. 1:1, 17; II Cor. 10:8; 13:10; Rom. 1:1). Not seldom the Lord 
is referred to as his authority in certain specific matters (I Cor. 7:10, 12, 
25; 9:14; 11:23; I Thess. 4:15). Yet we have it on his own statement 
that his gospel was substantially that of the Jerusalem Christians (Gal. 
2:6-9). At first he and the Palestinian Christians were at one, even in 
regard to salvation by faith, at least nominally so (Gal. 2:15, 16). The 
trouble came when he emphasized salvation by grace in opposition to 
Jewish particularism and acted upon his principles in the evangelization 
of the gentiles. More than once Paul acknowledges his dependence upon 
the primitive Christian tradition (e. g., I Cor. 11:23; 15:3). He acquired 
knowledge of the historical character and teaching of Jesus both before 
and after his conversion. For instance, his recognition of the law of love 
as the regulative principle of the Christian life undoubtedly had its source 

40 


OUTLINE OF NEW TESTAMENT CHRISTOLOGY 41 


in the character and teaching of Jesus himself. But much more than that: 
his acquaintance with the earthly life and teaching of Jesus was more 
extensive than some scholars have supposed, impressed as they are with 
the fact that Paul dwells upon the glorified Redeemer and says compara- 
tively little about the earthly experiences of Jesus. What Paul knew about 
Jesus was just what other Christians in general knew, for all alike were 
instructed in the evangelic tradition, not to dwell upon what ever remains 
the greatest source of knowledge—the life, the conduct, of those animated 
by his spirit. Paul found a Christian community at Damascus (Gal. 
1:17; II Cor. 11:32, 33). On his visit of a fortnight to Jerusalem he had 
the opportunity of interviewing Peter, who had been with Jesus, and others 
whose knowledge was personal (Gal. 1:18, 19). His association with 
Barnabas (Gal. 2:1, 9; Acts 11:25) and with the churches of Syria and 
Cilicia, in fact his whole contact with Christian communities which he 
himself did not found, could have no other result than to acquaint him with 
the common church tradition about Jesus. It also formed in all probability 
a part of his own preaching, a primary duty being the instruction of his 
own converts on the subject. A curious confirmation of this is found in 
Aramaic words which he transliterated and taught to his gentile readers 
and which have found their way into the epistles (ἀββᾶ, Gal. 4:6; Rom. 
8:15; μαραναθά, I Cor. 16:22).? 

It is impossible here to give a full and adequate presentation of the 
Pauline Christology; all that is attempted is an indication of what is 
distinctive in his thought about Christ. His contribution to Christology 
may be exhibited under five heads, to which is added a paragraph on 
eschatology: the pre-existent and incarnate Lord, the crucified Redeemer, 
the cosmic Savior, the indwelling Christ, the divine Son of God, the coming 
Lord. In the treatment of future topics we shall have occasion often to 
recur to the teaching of Paul. 

1. There is good reason to believe that when the Jewish-Christian 
community applied to Jesus the category of messiahship, in spite of his 
own cautious use of the term as applied to himself, they felt that all that 
the Jews expected of the Messiah must be true of him. Now in Jewish 
thought the Messiah was waiting in the heavens for the time of his mani- 
festation, when he would come in pomp and power for the overthrow of 
his enemies and the salvation of God’s people. In this view much of the 
messianic work was deferred in thought to a second coming; the pre- 
existence was taken for granted. But whether this pre-existence was to 

τ See Case, ‘“‘Paul’s Historical Relation to the First Disciples,” American Journal 
of Theology, 1907, p- 260. 

41 


42 HISTORICAL AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES 


their thought ideal, existing in the mind of God, or, as is more likely, per- 
sonal, the Jewish Christians probably made no such ethical use of it as Paul. 
He speaks of the pre-existence of Christ as familiar to his readers and 
undisputed. The Man from heaven of apocalyptic speculation, who had 
existed from all time with God, out of love for man left his high estate, came 
from heavenly glory to earth, to participate in the lowly fortunes of men 
for their redemption. Originally of a different nature from us, he became 
like us and took our nature; was born of a woman, became a real but 
sinless man, died on the cross, and was buried. His nature was thus 
judged not from his appearance in the flesh, but from his heavenly origin. 
The resurrection proved him to be the Son of God. He returned to glory 
and will come again to complete his messianic work in the consummation 
of the age. Paul could have found examples of Christ’s love and self- 
sacrifice in the life of Jesus; indeed, he did center his thought upon the 
supreme example of his death. But he was dominated by the Jewish 
speculative idea, and viewed the nature and the work of Jesus from the 
point of view of the heavenly Christ. However, Wernle’s way of putting 
it does not help us to understand Paul; he says: ‘‘Doubtless this whole 
point of view is a myth from beginning to end, and cannot be termed any- 
thing else;”’ it is the “‘story of a God who had descended from heaven.” * 
It was rather the transformation of a current Jewish speculation into an 
ethical and spiritual doctrine, resulting from the impression Jesus had made 
upon Paul; the end was practical: it means the divine love manifesting 
itself in the incarnation, an example of service, sacrifice, humility, obedience 
—more than that, a God who redeems us, enters our life, and secures our 
renewal, personal communion, and sonship (II Cor. 8:9; Phil. 2:5-11). 

But what was Paul’s conception of the human nature of Jesus? Between 
the two periods of the Son of God’s existence in heaven there comes that 
of the incarnate life, the humiliation. His becoming poor (II Cor. 8:9) 
is sometimes taken to refer to a state of earthly poverty, and there may 
indeed be a secondary reminiscence of the fact that Jesus was lowly, but 
the primary thought is that he abandoned the riches of heaven for a human 
life. Paul’s language implies that the manhood of Jesus Christ was 
assumed and formal. We are even reminded of the docetic teachers of a 
later period, but the reality of the humanity of Christ is essential to the 
thought of Paul; that is to say, he was born into the world in a human 
way, possessed a body of flesh, and was subject to death. To what extent 
did he also possess human thought, feeling, and will? Paul does not say 

1 Die Anfinge unserer Religion, erste Auflage, 5. 154 (Beginnings of Chris- 
tianity, I, p. 251). 

42 


OUTLINE OF NEW TESTAMENT CHRISTOLOGY 43 


that the Son of God became man, but that ‘‘he emptied himself, taking 
the form of a bond-servant, coming in likeness (ἐν ὁμοιώματι) of men, 
and being found in fashion (σχήματι) as a man he humbled himself” (Phil. 
2:7), and that God sent his own son ἐν ὁμοιώματι σαρκὸς ἁμαρτίας (Rom. 
at3).* 

2. We have seen that according to his own testimony Paul received 
in the primitive tradition the fact that Christ died for the sins of believers 
(I Cor. 15:3). The contradiction between the ignominious death and the 
messianic vocation was felt by him as keenly as by the Jewish-Christian 
community (τὸ σκάνδαλον τοῦ σταυροῦ, Gal. 5:11; I Cor. 1:23). He 
grappled with the problem seriously and boldly, and permanently influenced 
the thinking of the church. He developed, explained, and enriched the 
primitive connection in thought between the death of Christ and his saving 
work. His new spiritual life would not seem to have needed help from 
thought of the death of Christ, for its strength was drawn from communion 
with the risen Lord; yet the death had to be explained. Somehow it 
must be a fact of supreme significance, and so Paul came to regard it as 
the culmination and crowning glory of Christ’s saving work. From his 
point of view there was no special help to be gained from dwelling upon 
the historical situation; he makes but one reference to it (I Thess. 2:15). 
It must be looked at from above, and in the light of his own vision-experi- 
ence of the risen and glorified Christ. Jesus was a curse (κατάρα), but 
it was ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν (Gal. 3:13). Though holy, he was made sin on our 
behalf (II Cor. 5:21, ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν ἁμαρτίαν ἐποίησεν). The cross becomes 
the symbol of the divine condescension, in which Paul glories (Gal. 6:14). 
It is a sacrifice God himself has furnished, which men have only to accept; 
he was in Christ, reconciling the world to himself; it is an expression and 
assurance of his love (Rom. 5:8; 8:32). 

But how was a sacrifice necessary? There is an aspect of the divine 
character expressed by the words ὀργή and δικαιοσύνη. God disapproves 
sin, and the death of Christ is an ἔνδειξις τῆς δικαιοσύνης αὐτοῦ (Rom. 
3:25). So Paul uses ἃ rich variety of expressions: those implying substitu- 
tion (ὑπέρ or περὶ ὑμῶν, or τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν ἡμῶν, not however ἀντὶ ὑμῶν), 
redemption (ἀπολύτρωσις), reconciliation (καταλλαγή), propitiation 
(ἱλαστήριον, Rom. 3:25), the language of sacrifice (blood), Christ as our 
passover who has been sacrificed (I Cor. 5:7). In one instance, the 
notable passage in Rom. 3:21~-26, Paul undertakes to explain why it was 


τ “ Die Menschheit ist ihm also eigentlich etwas Fremdes, ein Bettlergewand, das 
der himmlische Kénigssohn fiir eine Weile tiberwirft, um es wieder abzustreifen.” 
—Wrede, Paulus, S. 55 (Eng. trans., p. 90). 

43 


44 HISTORICAL AND LINGUISTIO STUDIES 


necessary that Christ should die, the reason being that God had in his 
forbearance formerly passed over sins, with the result of creating the 
suspicion that he was indifferent to them; but to erect this into Paul’s 
theory of the atonement is to give it undue weight and to ignore the obvious 
meaning of his language elsewhere. In Paul’s thought there was not merely 
a substitution of methods, but a transfer of penalty, a transaction (if the 
meaning of the word is not pushed too far), an expiation, a propitiation. 
That his way of looking at it is not acceptable to some modern men does 
not argue invalidity in his reasoning for him. For he had been trained 
in Jewish law. Deissmann thinks that the forensic terms he uses could 
have been heard daily in the police-courts of Greek cities, but the decisive 
factor with Paul at this point was probably his Jewish theology. He was 
not a slave to it; he has given us abundant evidence that when he chose, 
he could use vital analogies. Certainly the religio-ethical element is 
present, and indeed dominant, in his thought. It is a mistake, however, 
to deny and explain away the other. 

3. The original Christology and controversy centered in the messiah- 
ship of Jesus, but more was involved in the affirmation of such messiah- 
ship than was at first realized. It was Paul’s great office to discern that 
the gospel of Jesus is different from the religion of law and to lay bare the 
radical opposition between Judaism, the religion of law, and Christianity, 
the religion of spirit, grace, faith, and ethical freedom. For him, there- 
fore, the maintenance of the messianic claim for Jesus meant the exposition 
and defense of a new morality and a new attitude toward life. The 
Jewish teachers themselves discerned in the person and message of Jesus 
the antithesis of that for which they stood, but Jewish opposition to the 
Jewish-Christian church was principally not from the side of the Pharisaic 
party, but from the priestly, Sadducean custodians of law and order (Acts 
4:1). Paul’s penetration into the heart of the gospel was deeper and his 
horizon broader; so it devolved upon him to bring into the light of day 
the universalism implicit in Christianity from the beginning. For him 
Jesus was not only a Jewish Messiah, but much more a world-Redeemer. 
Paul eliminated what was merely Jewish and national, and drew to the 
_person of Jesus the larger and universal aspirations of men.t Jesus 


: Paul retained belief in the special réle reserved for Israel (Rom. 11: 25-32), but 
in the church at large this remnant of Jewish nationalism could not long exist along- 
side of the Pauline universal conception of Christ’s work. The increasing enmity of 
the Jews against Christians, the diminishing influence of Jewish Christianity, and the 
destruction of the temple and holy city and of the Jewish people as a nation, contributed 
toward eliminating the hope fer Israel κατὰ σάρκα. The Old Testament promises 
were then taken to refer to the new nation. The admission of the law for Jewish 


44 


OUTLINE OF NEW TESTAMENT CHRISTOLOGY 45 


Christ, the Son of God, died for all men, and his death was a cosmic fact, 
holding the center of the world’s history. Through him are all things, 
and his relation to mankind is original and organic (I Cor. 8:6). The 
heavenly, second Man may have been Paul’s equivalent for the Son of 
man of Daniel and the first Christian community, but his cosmic concep- 
tion gave to Jesus a significance like that of Adam, the father of the race; 
as the second Adam, the head and founder of a new humanity, he recovers 
what Adam lost, and in him a new human epoch takes its rise (I Cor., 
chap. 15; Rom., chap. 5). As Adam started the race wrong and down- 
ward, so Christ comes and makes a complete break in history, sets up a 
new human line, and starts the race anew. He is 6 ἔσχατος ᾿Αδάμ, ὃ δεύτερος 
ἄνθρωπος ἐξ οὐρανοῦ." 

4. A point at which Paul departed fundamentally in his Christology 
from his predecessors and contemporaries and where he is independent, 
individual, and original, is in his conception of the indwelling Christ. 
What manner of life Jesus lived on earth Paul learned from others and he 
acknowledged his indebtedness to the primitive tradition; but the heart 
of his Christology was built on the basis of his inner experience, on the 
risen Christ who had appeared to him, whom he knew directly and not 
by hearsay. Paul did not distinguish sharply in his experience between 
the influence of Christ and that of the Spirit (I Cor. 15:45; II Cor. 3:17). 
In the Jewish-Christian community the Spirit was the source of ecstasy and 
special endowments; Paul transferred the Spirit’s activity to the entire 
ethical and religious life of the believer, in union with God and in fellow- 


Christians was but a temporary expedient; Jewish Christianity and universal Christian- 
ity could not long exist side by side. Paul’s doctrine that the law was divine in 
origin and holy, but abrogated and not binding upon gentile Christians, was quite 
difficult, till the allegorical interpretation made possible a “spiritual” understanding 
of the ceremonial ordinances. On the national side the extreme is reached in 
the Fourth Gospel, which mentions the Jews in terms of the divine rejection, though 
their pre-Christian status was one of privilege (1:47; 4:22). On the anti-ceremo- 
nial side the extreme among orthodox churchmen was reached in Barnabas, who 
rejected the cultus and legal ordinances of the Old Testament as a diabolical 
misrepresentation, claiming the Old Testament exclusively for Christianity. It was 
a short step to Gnosticism, which regarded Judaism and the Old Testament as the 
work of the devil and the Demiurge. See Harnack, A postelgeschichte, S. 9, 211-17 
(Acts of the Apostles, pp. xxv, 281 ff.). 

τ In the second century Christians spoke of themselves as a separate race. Aris- 
tides says that there are four races of men in this world: barbarians and Greeks, 
Jews and Christians; and that the barbarians reckon their head from Kronos, the 
Greeks from Zeus, the Jews from Abraham, and the Christians from Jesus Christ.— 
Apology, 2. 

45 


40 HISTORICAL AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES 


ship with Christ. In his own experience the presence of the Spirit was 
that of Christ, and meant life, freedom, sonship, as well as certain specific 
gifts of the Spirit (I Cor. 12:4-11). The pre-Pauline thought about 
Jesus was of an external character: Jesus was in heaven, exalted at the 
right hand of God, and he sent down his Spirit upon men. Paul needed 
no such mediation; Jesus himself was a life-giving Spirit, and he saved a 
man by taking up his abode within him (Gal. 1:16; 2:20; 3:27; 4:6, 
19; Rom. 8:10). Under the control of the Spirit of Christ he was freed 
from bondage to the flesh; he died with Christ to the flesh and rose with 
him to the new life of the Spirit, and the experience of others is described 
in the same terms as his own (Gal. 2:20; II Cor. 4:10; Rom., chap. 6; 
AeA: 8x0; (Phil τ: το). 

The union between the believer and the risen Christ was certainly one 
of disposition, mind, heart, will, character, but it was more; it was an 
organic union, corresponding to the physical relation between men and 
Adam (I Cor. 15:47-49). Im the case of the natural man and Adam 
the basis of the union was the σάρξ; in the case of the spiritual man and 
Christ the basis was the πνεῦμα (I Cor. 6:17). In becoming united to 
Christ a man becomes a partaker with him of the divine nature or πνεῦμα. 
His personality being in harmony with the Spirit, he is a spiritual man 
(Gal. 4:6; 5:16, 17; 1 Cor. 2:12; δ: τὰ; 12:12; Tl Cor. ἘΠ 22: τ ΤΠ 
He is master of the lower nature (Gal. 5:16-18, 24; I Cor. 6:15, 16; Rom. 
8:4, 5, 12-15). He is.a free man (Gal. 2:19; 3:24-27; 5:13) 15; ἸΣΌΠΙ: 
6:14; 7:6; 10:4). Yet the life is a fulfilling of that inner, spiritual law 
which represents the divine character and will (Gal. 5:14; Rom. 7:14; 
8:4; 13:8-10). But while the flesh remains there must still be a struggle, 
and a man may lose his hold on Christ. Final salvation means release 
from the flesh and resurrection in a new, spiritual body, suited to the 
heavenly life (I Cor. 15:54-57; Rom. 6:8-10, 23; 8:23; 13:11). 

This organic relationship is not only with the individual, but is also 
with the body of believers, the brotherhood (ἐκκλησία); the church is the 
body of Christ (I Cor. 12:12, 27). The communion is realized in the 
Supper (I Cor. 10:16, 17; 11:23, 29). Paul knew what according to the 
evangelic tradition Jesus said about his death being for the benefit of his 
followers, and his identification of the bread and wine with his body and 
blood. How further he came to his profound conceptions of oneness and 
fellowship with the glorified Christ and participation in the life of God 
through him is not easy to determine. His thinking was akin to the 
longings of fine religious spirits among the Greeks. Justin, writing just 
beyond the middle of the second Christian century, says that to look upon 

46 


OUTLINE OF NEW TESTAMENT CHRISTOLOGY 47 


God is the end of Plato’s philosophy (κατόψεσθαι τὸν θεόν. τοῦτο yap 
τέλος τῆς Πλάτωνος Pirocodpias.— Dialogue with Trypho, 2:6). 

5. Titles of Jesus which Paul took over from the Jewish-Christian 
community assumed for him new meaning. There was in general a 
broadening and a heightening. Even during his earthly life Jesus was 
called ‘‘Lord,” the Semitic term, "73, preserved by Paul, being applicable 
to God to indicate rulership and to men deemed worthy of special honor, 
such as the king. After the resurrection and exaltation of Jesus the term 
in its application to Jesus was proportionately elevated. The early Pales- 
tinian disciples who spoke Aramaic called Jesus ‘‘our Lord” (72)---ἃ 
form preserved not only by Paul (I Cor. 16:22), but also in the Didache 
(10:6). When Christian missionaries came to transfer Hebrew and Aramaic 
terms to Greek, Κύριος had to do service for J" and "35, as in the Sep- 
tuagint, and for "73. So a common expression with Paul, based on the Ara- 
maic, is 6 Κύριος ἡμῶν. There was a tendency to reserve Κύριος for Jesus 
and use Θεός of God. The address of prayer to Jesus and the application 
to him of Old Testament passages that originally referred to God indicated 
that in their thought God and Jesus occupied similar positions in relation 
to men. “But the Jewish Christians were strictly monotheists, and did 
not go to the length of calling Jesus God. Their heaven-exalted saints and 
heroes like Enoch and Moses and Elijah were not thought divine, and even 
the Messiah was but a heavenly being chosen and sent by God. As in 
modern Greek, κύριε was but a polite form of address, used in speaking 
to others as well as to God or Jesus. But for Jewish Christianity Κύριος 
was employed to express the heavenly, spiritual authority of Jesus the 
Christ over the community. Now Paul was a Jew, and therefore a 
monotheist; and although among the heathen there were gods many and 
lords many, for him as for Mohammed there was no God but one—the 
Father, of whom are all things (I Cor. 8:4-6).2, But there was also one 
Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and we through him, and 
as we shall see, the recognition of this mediatorship for Paul’s thought 
carried the movement well on the way toward the high Christology sub- 
sequently reached. 

Now no such monotheism prevailed in the gentile world. No insuper- 
able difficulty was experienced in ascribing deity to Jesus. Their heroes 
were called gods, and the emperor was worshiped; surely Jesus was deserv- 


« See Case, “Κύριος as a Title for Christ,” Journal of Biblical Literature, Vol. 
XXVI, 1907. 
2 J. Weiss (Christus, S. 29) thinks that in the much-discussed passage, Rom. 9:5, 
Christ is called God, but that the text is corrupt. 
47 


48 HISTORICAL AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES 


ing of no less an honor. It is reported that at Lystra when Paul healed a 
lame man, the crowd cried out: ‘‘The gods are come down to us in the 
likeness of men;” and they called Barnabas Zeus and Paul Hermes, and 
the priest of Zeus brought bulls and garlands and desired to sacrifice with 
the crowd (Acts 14:8-13). Again, on the island of Melita, when Paul 
unharmed shook a snake from his arm into the fire, the friendly barbarians 
said he was a god (Acts 28:1-6). To this gentile public Christianity 
had to be presented, and the problems were vastly different from those of 
the Jewish apologetic. Jesus must be set forth not as the Jews’ Messiah, 
but as the divine Savior, the world’s Redeemer from sin. Savior, the 
Latin form, is the gentile equivalent for Messiah; for the Jews themselves 
were after salvation, and their hopes went out after a coming Deliverer. 
Accordingly by Paul and after his time Jesus is interpreted as a world- 
character; as in the gospels, where he appears as a miracle-worker, a 
demon-conqueror, Lord over nature, one who commissions for world- 
evangelism. 

The title ‘Son of God” conveyed a different meaning to the Greek 
mind from the impression conveyed to the Semitic mind. The older 
Hebrew conception was mostly an ethical one; God’s son was his chosen, 
his beloved. The gentile took the title literally. He did not distinguish 
between a heavenly being who was not God and God himself, and Ignatius 
did not hesitate to call Jesus God. Paul stopped short of this, but went 
so far as not only to accommodate himself to gentile needs, but in his own 
thinking to fall into their modes of thought. The Son of God was by 
nature son; he had been with God from eternity, existing in the divine 
form and being equal with God. As has been already emphasized, to 
Paul’s thought the Son stands in a relation of subordination to and depend- 
ence on God (I Cor. 3:23; 15:24-28; Phil. 2:9-11). Im one passage 
Paul says that Jesus was appointed (or constituted, δρισθέντος) Son of 
God with power according to a spirit of holiness by the resurrection of the 
dead (Rom. 1:4); but elsewhere it is clear that his thought is that Jesus 
did not have to become the Son of God, his divine sonship being essential 
and coextensive with his existence (Gal. 4:4; Rom. 8:3, 32). 

Yet his humanity was real. Paul speaks as though his was a normal 
human birth (Gal. 4:4; Rom. 1:3), and mentions the Lord’s brothers 
(Gal.'T 20; DGorvo25): 

The messianic concept was inadequate to express Paul’s thought 
of Christ. It alone was not able to secure for him fellowship with God. 
It failed to do justice to his experience. It did not express his conviction 
that the inward, spiritual authority of Christ was superior to the external 

48 


OUTLINE OF NEW TESTAMENT CHRISTOLOGY 49 


authority of law. It did not meet the needs of world-redemption. It was 
unintelligible to his gentile hearers. The political aspects of messianism 
seem never to have made any appeal to him. One thing he did know— 
that God had apprehended him through Christ; the light of the knowledge 
of God’s glory had shone upon him from Jesus Christ (II Cor. 4:6). No 
relation between a merely angelic being and God would answer to such 
facts of experience. Only one who is outside the category of creation, 
the representation and manifestation of God, possessing God’s own nature 
—God’s own Son—is able to meet the needs of experience. In this Paul 
has influenced the later thinking of the church. But the movement was 
already under way. In Paul the deeper thought-currents of the age, 
growing naturally out of the situation, found profound and victorious 
expression. 

6. Perhaps the most striking and significant fact in connection with 
Paul’s eschatological views is that while he takes over the whole eschato- 
logical-messianic programme from Judaism, at the same time he practically 
transcends it, being lifted above its limitations by the power and dominance 
of his religio-ethical thought. For example, formally justification is 
acquittal at the Judgment-Day, practically it is realizable at once. Like all 
other Christians of his age, he held that the consummation had not yet 
been realized, and Christ must come again to complete his messianic 
work; and yet his emphasis is upon what Christ has already done by his 
incarnation, death, and resurrection to achieve salvation, and upon his 
present activity as the living Savior. The unhealthful tendencies toward 
ecstasy and idleness that early manifested themselves under the glowing 
expectation of the Lord’s speedy return in glory and of the catastrophic 
passing-away of the present order were rebuked by Paul, who transferred 
the emphasis from the future to the blessings and duties of the present: 
the state of acceptance with God, sonship, spiritual freedom, love of the 
brethren, and social duties with respect to the state, marriage, property, 
and labor. The final judgment is described after the current Jewish 
manner as according to deeds (II Cor. 5:10), but in his characteristic 
thought Paul does not believe that a man’s standing before God is legalis- 
tically determined. The resurrection of Christ was as for the first disciples 
an assurance of the messiahship of Jesus; it was also a guaranty of the 
final resurrection of believers, who on account of their personal relation to 
Christ (I Cor. 15:23) are to return to full vitality in a body suited to the 
spirit (σῶμα πνευματικόν). In the resurrection of Jesus the sovereignty 
of death was abolished; and although physical death remained, it was no 
longer as to the Jew regarded as punishment for sin, for its sting was 

49 


δ0 HISTORICAL AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES 


removed for those who had already died to sin and the flesh and entered 
upon the new life in the Spirit. Sometimes Paul writes as though there 
were an intermediate state of sleep (I Thess. 4:14; I Cor. 15:51), and again 
as though the believer passed to the resurrection-life at death (II Cor. 5: 1-9) 
and to depart were to be with Christ (Phil. 1:23). Evidence of a real 
development or change in Paul’s thought with reference to the parousia 
is wanting in his epistles; if in the earlier letters he writes as though he 
expected the Lord to return in his own lifetime (I Thess. 4:17; I Cor. 15: 
51), in Rome he is still waiting for a Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ (Phil. 
3:20). If, as his end drew near, he did not think the Lord would return 
before his own death, that would indicate no fundamental change in his 
thought. 

A second point of interest in Paul’s eschatology is his attitude toward 
the present world and his view of its destiny. He is concerned with it 
only in its moral aspect. As an evangelist and missionary he is zealous 
to rescue “‘from this present evil age” (Gal. 1:4) as many of his own race 
and as many out of heathenism as possible. As a pious Jew, though a 
Christian, he lived in the consciousness of impending judgment. Jews, 
gentiles, and even the material world were doomed and bound for destruc- 
tion. The pious Hebrew believed that the world was so wicked that a 
flood was needed to wipe out the existing race of men and make a new 
start. So Paul thought that all men were under the condemnation of 
death, on account of Adam’s sin and their own. The flesh was weak, so 
that although man desired to be free, he was a slave. ‘The world was ruled 
by powers hostile to God. This dark picture was Paul’s inheritance. 
But on the road to Damascus he saw a great light. In the resurrection 
of the Lord whom he beheld the reign of death came to an end, and the 
world of Satan became for him God’s world. The Spirit of Jesus took 
possession of the heart that had been irredeemably evil and energized the 
impotent will. In the cross he found no longer a stumbling-block, but a 
message of grace and love. Now the eschatological work of Christ was 
glorious for the comparatively few who were among the saved, but it was 
hard on his enemies. Paul preached glad tidings. But what was to be 
the fate of those who died in impenitence ? Paul does not resort to the 
ingenious expedient of supposing that upon his descent to Hades between 
his death and resurrection Christ preached the gospel to imprisoned souls, 
but there is evidence that he found a way out. Here as elsewhere his dom- 
inantly ethical nature asserted itself. Perhaps it would not be to the point 
to appeal to the fact that the redeeming work of Christ is described as 


coextensive with the ruin wrought by sin (I Cor. 15:22; Rom. 5:18), 
50 


OUTLINE OF NEW TESTAMENT CHRISTOLOGY 51 


and that universal terms are used of Christ’s complete triumph which to 
us may seem hardly in keeping with the salvation of comparatively few. 
There are, however, other indications that tend to relieve him of the pessi- 
mism sometimes ascribed to him. Against an insistence upon conscious 
acceptance of Christ irrespective of opportunity as the basis of acceptance 
with God we have only to recall the instance of such Old Testament saints 
as Abraham. In its higher and more blessed stages faith was in Paul’s 
thought the act by which the believer identifies himself with Christ, but 
fundamentally it was a moral attitude—a receptive and obedient relation 
of the soul toward God and truth. The wrath of God is revealed from 
heaven against all impiety and unrighteousness of men who suppress the 
truth in unrighteousness (Rom. 1:18). Character is the basis of judgment, 
for the judgment of God is according to truth, and God will render to 
each according to his works; to them that by patience of well-doing seek 
for glory and honor and incorruption, eternal life, but to them that are 
factious and disobedient to the truth and obedient to unrighteousness, 
wrath and indignation (Rom. 2:2, 6-8). For there is no respect of persons 
with God; each shall be treated in accordance with his circumstances 
(Rom. 2:11). Even the gentiles possess conscience, by which they stand 
or fall (Rom. 2:14, 15). 

Paul was a many-sided man, through whom flowed the currents of 
the age, and it is too much to ask of him that he always be rigidly logical 
and consistent. 


51 


V. CHRISTOLOGY IN THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS AND ACTS 


The christological importance of the Synoptic Gospels for our period 
is not commensurate with their central place as sources of the knowledge 
of Jesus. The picture of Jesus presented therein was not the leading 
factor in christological development. Other factors determined the course 
of that development and the christological forms, so that the tendency 
was more and more to obscure Jesus as a historical person. Yet the 
Synoptic Gospels, in spite of their own Christology, have by virtue of the 
memory of Jesus they preserve ever acted as a check upon alien speculation 
and recalled the Christian church to the historic basis of its faith. The 
memorabilia of Jesus have proved themselves a powerful vitalizing ethical 
and religious force. An illustration may be given in the case of the Fourth 
Gospel: its wonderful ethical and religious power is due to the fact that 
combined with its theological interpretation is a penetrating insight into the 
personality and character of Jesus. In thus emphasizing the central impor- 
tance of the Synoptic Gospels as preserving the knowledge of Jesus it is 
not intimated that the attempt to interpret him theologically could or 
should have been avoided. The effort to understand the real significance 
of Jesus, to place the proper estimate upon him, to explain him by the 
means and in the forms at their disposal, was inevitable and necessary to 
the success of the Christian movement. 

It is then a matter of the greatest significance that along with the 
development of christological doctrine the church was interested in main- 
taining the historical picture of him whom they sought first to explain 
messianically. Accepting the messianic estimate they worshiped him as 
the risen and exalted Redeemer and looked forward to his coming again 
in glory, but they looked also toward the past and fixed their gaze upon 
Jesus. Some of the first generation had seen him; others had to rely upon 
the tradition of his mighty deeds and words. As the eyewitnesses were pass- 
ing away the church felt the need of gathering and preserving in writing 
the oral tradition. It is the Palestinian community we have ultimately to 
thank for the preservation of the evangelic tradition,’ inevitably embellished 
as it is with their reflections upon his glorified life and their messianic hopes. 
In Palestine the original disciples of the Master were gathered and there 
the memory of his works and words was cherished. A conservative group, 
they wanted to be true to his teaching and example, and so they brought 


«Yet justice must be done to the gentile Christians, who carried farther the 
gospel-making process, and to whom we owe our four canonical gospels. 


52] 52 


OUTLINE OF NEW TESTAMENT CHRISTOLOGY 53 


together his sayings and deeds in collections for practical guidance. His 
works of wisdom, power, and goodness, fulfilling Old Testament prophecy, 
were pointed to for confirmation of hismessiahship. On earth Jesus, though 
still a man, was equipped with the Spirit and power. 

Paul worshiped the risen, eternal Christ who for but a brief space had 
appeared among men in Jesus, to bring to an end the curse of the law, and 
so in his letters he makes comparatively little use of the evangelic tradition, 
though he was familiar with it and doubtless made larger use of it on other 
occasions. ΤῸ him it was of first importance that Christ had come into 
the world, died on the cross, and risen from the dead. But others felt the 
need of returning to Jesus as he lived on earth. The author of First Peter 
finds inspiration in his suffering and patience, and the writer of Hebrews 
makes especially striking use of the evangelic tradition (asin 5:7-9). In the 
literature of the second century there is frequent appeal to what the Lord 
had said or commanded. In some instances we find a great deal of gospel- 
material, asin the Didache inits present form and in Justin. In like manner 
the sayings of great rabbis were gradually collected by the Jews. After Paul 
and others had introduced Christianity into the gentile world, Jewish Chris- 
tianity of Palestine assumed less and less of importance; it was off to the side, 
out of the strong current of progress. Yet these Palestinian Jewish Chris- 
tians left to the church the legacy of the evangelic tradition. The next step 
was the translation of the Aramaic collections for the Greek-speaking world. 

Luke says that already many had taken in hand to draw up the evangelic 
narrative. We know of the existence of several gospels in addition to those 
that found final ecclesiastical recognition, but such fragments of them as we 
possess are too meager to justify our taking account of them in this dis- 
cussion. The authors of the ones we possess were not eyewitnesses, but 
belonged to the second or third generation, which felt an interest in preserv- 
ing what had been delivered to it. Their christological standpoint was 
simply that of the generation to which they belonged. Accordingly their 
narratives were written under the influence of their Christology and had to 
be somehow brought into relation with it. It is easy to undervalue the 
christological material and influence in the Synoptic Gospels, and no less 
a mistake to look upon it all as christological, after the manner of the 
Fourth Gospel. Many illustrations of the self-restraint of the synoptists 
might be given; let one suffice. The phrase ‘‘Son of man” is frequently 


τ For example, W. A. Brown exaggerates when he says: “It is as true of the Fourth 
Gospel as of the epistles, and of the Synoptics as of the Fourth Gospel, that their sub- 
ject is not so much the Jesus of history as the Christ of faith.”—Christian Theology 
in Outline, p. 328. 

53 


54 HISTORICAL AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES 


used, but always by Jesus himself; it occurs only once in Acts, twice in the 
Apocalypse, never in the epistles, and rarely in other Christian literature of 
the period. It is not our problem to note what the synoptists have to say 
about Jesus, but to determine their christological standpoint. Everywhere, 
however, we shall be confronted with the difficult task of distinguishing 
between the account of Jesus in the sources and the synoptists’ own con- 
ceptions of Christ. The task is simplified by the fact that we already know 
in its main outlines the prevalent Christology of the period. 
MARK 


Mark gives us a simple and graphic account of the ministry of Jesus, 
telling only how he appeared to men during the period between his baptism 
and his resurrection. He appears to follow the tradition with fidelity, 
recounting events and words without comment of his own and not permitting 
his christological views to eclipse Jesus as he was. Papias has set the 
example of ever distinguishing sharply between the accounts of Jesus’ 
works and his words, perhaps to the confusion of modern students;! a 
quarter of Mark is taken up with the teaching of Jesus. Mark’s order is 
intended to be in general outline chronological and does not accord with 
Papias’ statement that he wrote accurately but not in order (“ἀκριβῶς 
ἔγραψεν, ov μέντοι tafe,” Euseb., H. E. 3:39:15). The Hebraistic 
style suggests that the book was written by a Jew, but it was composed in 
Greek. It was not intended for Palestinian Jews nor for Jews outside 
of Palestine, but for readers unacquainted with Jewish affairs; hence 
Aramaic words are translated and Jewish customs explained (3:17, 22; 
ἘΠῚ 7:3, 4; Ll, 24) 9:43; 19:40: 12:12, 30; Το Ὁ, 22, ΞΗ͂ 2": 
traditional place of composition is Rome, and the numerous Latin words 
suggest a Roman public; yet the other gospels employ Latinisms, which 
had in considerable number very naturally found their way into the Greek 
language.?, Chap. 13 shows that in its present form Mark was written 
after the destruction of Jerusalem, but probably not long after. 

The christological standpoint is manifest in the opening words: ‘‘ Begin- 
ning of the gospel of Jesus Christ.” Mark presupposes the work of 
Paul. The evangelic tradition is adapted to practical use in the churches. 
The double name ‘‘Jesus Christ” in the opening verse is significant. 
“Christ” has lost its original messianic meaning and become a personal 

τ The fact is that Papias has been taken too uncritically. There probably never 
existed any such ‘‘ Logia”’ as modern scholars build upon. 

2 Grabatus, 2:4, 9, 11; 6:55; legion, 5:9, 15; speculator, 6:27; denarius, 6:37; 
14:5; sextarius, 7:4; census, 12:14; quadrans, 12:42; flagello, 15:15; praetorium, 
15:16; spira, 15:16; centurion, 15:39, 44, 45. 

54 


OUTLINE OF NEW TESTAMENT CHRISTOLOGY 55 


name. To the gentile Christians for whom the book was written the 
Jewish ‘‘Messiah” meant little. But the author knew well that in the 
lifetime of Jesus the double name was not yet in use, and so as he passes 
on to his narrative he uses “‘Jesus” only, reserving “Christ” for the strict 
messianic sense (8:29; 14:61; 15:32). Likewise ‘Son of God” and 
“the Son” are generally employed in the historical Old Testament sense 
of one beloved of God, occupying a position of special nearness to God, in 
personal fellowship with him (1:11; 9:7; 12:1-8). The idea of the 
centurion at the cross was of course that Jesus was a hero or demi-god 
(15:39). But it is evident that for the author himself the title has the 
Pauline, theological meaning of one possessing God’s nature. We are 
here upon a Pauline basis. We should therefore be unwarranted in 
supposing that because Mark did not mention the doctrine of Christ’s 
pre-existence, he did not believe in it. The case is different with respect 
to the virgin-birth, of which like Paul he seems to have known nothing 
(10:47; Rom. 1:3).! The Greeks were accustomed to think of their 
gods in the form of men, and Mark like Paul could think of the human 
Jesus as of divine, heavenly origin. 

It is with this Pauline, christological background that the whole narra- 
tive is to be read. We may be able to see in Jesus’ baptism an act of great 
significance for his own consciousness, as did the original Jewish-Christian 
community, but it is doubtful whether for Mark it had such a meaning.? 
As Samuel took the horn of oil and anointed David in the midst of his 
brethren, and the Spirit of Jehovah came mightily upon David from that 
day forward, so the Spirit descended upon Jesus at his baptism, designating 
him the Christ and assuring him of God’s favor (1:10, 11; cf. Sam. 16:13); 
yet the voice from heaven but testified to a fact already present. Likewise 
the transfiguration was for the sake of the disciples, who had just confessed 
his messiahship and now beheld him for a brief time in his glory. His 
sonship is of a character to be recognized by supernatural demons, but is 
not easily discovered by men (3:11; 5:7). The primitive conception of 
his miracles as mighty works and wonders and signs which God wrought 
by fim is retained (Acts 2:22; Mark 2:12; 5:19; 6:2, 5, 14), but the 
feeding of the multitudes and the walking on the sea are related in a matter- 
of-fact way, as though such acts were to be expected of a divine personality 
like the figure we meet with in the Fourth Gospel. Yet in the tradition 


«It is not unlikely that the question of 6:3: ‘‘Is not this the carpenter, the son 
of Mary ?” in the original copy contained the words of Luke 4:22: “‘Joseph’s son.”’ 
2 Of Matthew’s thought there can be no doubt, for he changes to the third person: 
“This is my beloved Son” (Matt. 3:17). 
55 


56 HISTORICAL AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES 


there were evidences of limited power (6:5; 10:40; 14:36; 15:34). 
Jesus knows beforehand about his sufferings and resurrection in detail 
(10:32-34), but knows not the day or the hour of his return (13:32). 
His sinlessness was taken for granted; but his coming to John for baptism, 
his temptation, and his refusal to be called “good” (10:18) were in the 
tradition, and he was too true to what he had received about Jesus to 
eliminate it all in favor of his Christology. For Mark as for Paul every- 
thing culminates in the death of Christ (2:20; 8:31-33; 10:42-45; 14: 
22-24). Large space is given to the closing days. The death is of sacri- 
ficial, atoning significance. The Last Supper is a Christian passover. 
Of course Mark does not attempt to interpret it theologically as does Paul, 
and that for two reasons: he is writing a narrative and is loyal to the 
tradition, and secondly, the generation following Paul viewed Christianity 
in a simpler way than the apostle did. 

Summing up, we may say that Mark’s sources represent Jesus as a 
preacher of the kingdom of God, calling sinners to repentance; a Prophet 
and Teacher, superior to the scribes, speaking with authority, his utter- 
ances carrying weight; one who on the authority of God wrought miracles 
of healing (1:14, 22; 4:1-20; 6:4); also as the Messiah who will come 
again in the glory of his Father with the holy angels (8:38). But Mark’s 
own christological standpoint is that of the age succeeding Paul: for him 
Jesus Christ was the eternal Son of God, who alone had the right on earth 
to forgive sins (2:7, 10). 


LUKE-ACTS 


It is generally recognized that Luke and Acts have the same author and 
are in a way parts of the same work. The preface to Luke, written in 
characteristic literary form, marks the author as a man of culture. He was 
probably a convert from heathenism, and had little personal acquaintance 
with the scenes of the Lord’s life. He was no theologian, but was possessed 
of good historical taste and feeling. The Jewish war and the siege and 
destruction of Jerusalem are described in more vivid and detailed prophecies 
than in Mark and Matthew (Mark 19:42-44; 21:20-24). The descrip- 
tion of the persecution of Christians is also striking (Luke 6:22). It has been 
more frequently thought that Luke was later than Matthew, but decisive 
evidence is wanting. Both gospels were probably written about the same 
time at the beginning of the second century. The closing of Acts without 
mentioning the death of Paul is not conclusive for an early date. It is 
not likely that the end of the book has been lost, but when we consider 
the writer’s apologetic purpose, the freedom accorded the apostle though a 

56 


OUTLINE OF NEW TESTAMENT OHRISTOLOGY Bi 


prisoner seems a more fitting close than his condemnation to death. Acts 
was probably written after the persecution of Domitian. 

The Gospel of Luke was composed in an environment of Greek culture, 
and, addressed to ‘‘most excellent Theophilus” (κράτιστε Θεόφιλε), was 
designed to inform persons of social standing, doubtless non-Christians, 
about the origin and character of the Christian movement. The author’s 
own Christology is not brought to the front. The speech-material which 
he uses in common with Matthew strengthens the Markan impression of 
Jesus as a great prophetic personality dependent on God. Luke has sub- 
ordinated doctrinal interests. He delights in the parables of Jesus. The 
comprehensive sympathy of Jesus is brought out in his conversation with 
sinners, Samaritans, and women. He has contributed one new miracle: 
the raising of the young man at Nain. The great christological contribu- 
tion he shares with Matthew: that of the virgin-birth. Both Luke and 
Matthew attempt to show that Jesus was David’s son by means of gene- 
alogies, which do not agree with one another (Luke 3: 23-38; Matt. 1:1-17), 
and the result does not harmonize with the miraculous birth. The first 
chapters of Luke have strong Semitic coloring and came from Jewish- 
Christian sources. The beautiful Palestinian hymns and the primitive 
descriptions of the Messiah are especially to be noted (Luke 1:32; 2:4, 
11). The Semitic setting suggests that the conception of the virgin-birth 
was of Palestinian origin. Its christological significance is that it furnished 
a way of accounting for the divine personality of Jesus. The agency of the 
Spirit under such circumstances was not unfamiliar to Hebrew thought.t 
The incidents related in these opening chapters of Luke are closely related 
to Old Testament stories. As for the Greeks, they were accustomed to 
think of men of unusual gifts as sons of gods with a human mother.? 
Of course with their exalted ethical conception of God derived from the 
prophets and from Jesus himself Christians could not think in the realistic 
forms of the Greeks, and hence the holy conception was spoken of in terms 
of awe and mystery: “ὙΠῸ Holy Spirit shall come upon thee and the power 


t Paul speaks of Isaac as born after the Spirit (Gal. 4:29; Rom. 4:16-21). Job 
claims to have been the helper of the poor, the widow, and the fatherless, from his 
mother’s womb (31:16-18). Unusual circumstances are connected with the births 
of Isaac, Samson, and Samuel. This is especially true of John the Baptist, who was 
“filled with the Holy Spirit even from his mother’s womb” (Luke 1:15). In the 
Gospel according to the Hebrews the Holy Spirit, which in Hebrew is a feminine noun, 
is represented as the mother of Jesus: ἣ μήτηρ μον τὸ ἅγιον πνεῦμα. (Quoted by 
Origen, Comm. on John 2:6; in Homil. on Jer. 15:4; by Jerome on Isa. 40:13; Ezek. 
16:13: Mic: 7:6.) 

2 See for examples Pfleiderer, The Early Christian Conception of Christ, pp. 33-45. 

57 


58 HISTORICAL AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES 


of the Highest shall overshadow thee; wherefore also that which is born 
shall be called holy, Son of God” (Luke 1:35). 

The Book of Acts is the longest work in the New Testament, but it 
does not furnish us with much material for determining the author’s own 
christological standpoint. Its object is to give information concerning 
the introduction of Christianity into the gentile world and concerning 
the relation of Christianity to the Jewish religion and to the Roman state, 
and it treats of events of an outward nature. It was the first generation 
that fulfilled the task of introducing Christianity into the world at large 
and diffusing it over the earth, and although some time separates the author 
from the first generation, he chooses that through which to give his message. 
The Book of Acts is best understood as one of the earliest of our great Chris- 
tian apologies; it has the leading features of those that began to flourish 
about the middle of the second century. Christianity is the worship of one 
God, Creator, and Ruler of the world revealed to men by Christ; it is 
accepting Jesus as the Christ, proved such by the resurrection, and believing 
in the coming judgment and resurrection and living a holy life. The 
author would prove to the Roman power and the heathen world of culture 
that Christianity is the true religion: the fulfilment of revealed religion in 
Judaism, at one with the wisdom of the Greeks—worthy of tolerance and 
recognition by the state in view of the blameless lives of its adherents. 
Its extension is in accordance with God’s will and without danger to the 
state. Thus the problem of the relation of Christians to the state taken 
up by Paul in Rom. 13:1-7, resumed in I Pet. 2:13-17, again receives 
attention. The early speeches of Acts are apologies for the Christian 
brotherhood and its missionary activities and the later speeches of Paul 
are further apologies for Christianity and its extension among the gentiles. 
The attitude of the civil authorities toward charges brought against Chris- 
tians receives special attention, the Christians always being found innocent: 
at Philippi (16:20-40), at Thessalonica (17:6-9), at Corinth (18:12-17), 
and at Ephesus (19: 23-40). 

Thus we see that the general purpose of Luke and Acts is the same, 
and the Christology is that of the third generation. 


MATTHEW 


The Gospel of Matthew is a doctrinal work, representing an advanced 
stage of Christology. The author was a Christian Jew, possibly of Pales- 
tine, who knew the Hebrew Old Testament. He was, however, not a 
particularist—did not belong to the Jewish-Christian party, but to the 
church universal. He was free from Jewish law and prejudice, and 

58 


OUTLINE OF NEW TESTAMENT CHRISTOLOGY 59 


wherever his own thought shows itself, his Christology finds splendid 
universalistic expression. He represents the spirit of the developing 
church. He isa teacher and an artist. Mark’s order is in general chrono- 
logical, his topical. Lacking the picture-painting power of Mark and 
the poetic genius of Luke, he arranges his material according to numerical 
system. He presents not a portrait but an argument. He is perhaps 
more akin to John than to Mark. 

We may say that his primary purpose is to establish the messiahship 
of Jesus by showing how from birth to ascension he fulfilled the messianic 
requirements; lineage, birthplace, manner of birth, the events of his life, 
his death and resurrection, all pointing in the same direction. The con- 
formity of Old Testament prophecies concerning the Christ with the life 
of Jesus is demonstrated. He is Messiah, Son of David, King of the Jews, 
Immanuel, Son of man, Son of God, Teacher, Lord. But although the 
gospel was written to prove that Jesus bore the messianic character, such 
must not be understood in the older national sense. Matthew treads the 
path that leads to catholicism. Jesus is the Savior of the world, and from 
beginning to close it is the author’s own conviction that the gospel is intended 
for all nations (2:1-12; 28:19, 20). Either the date of Matthew is quite 
late, or else our author has anticipated ecclesiastical developments in a 
remarkable manner: witness the advanced recognition of the authority 
of the apostles and of the church (16:18, το; 18:15—20) and the developed 
baptismal formula. Christianity is a new spiritual law and Christ one 
who gives commandments (see especially the Sermon on the Mount and 
the Great Commission). In these directions the church was in a degree 
getting away from Paul. 

Three points may be especially noted: the heightening of the evangelic 
tradition, the place of the sacrificial death, and the eschatology. 

τ. Matthew’s transformation of the evangelic tradition in favor of 
his own Christology reminds us of the Gospel of John. One has only to 
set before him side by side Matthew where he follows Mark and Mark to 
behold the inner workings of Matthew’s own mind. It is not enough 
that Jesus cast out demons by the Spirit of God (12:28), performed miracles 
of healing, raised the dead to life, walked on the water, and on two occasions 
fed the multitudes with a few loaves and fishes. Miracles where cure is 
effected by physical means must be omitted; he heals with a word (8:8, 16). 
Miracle must be immediate: the disciples marveled, saying: “‘How did 
the fig-tree immediately wither away ?” (21:20). The scope of the healings 
must be made universal: ‘“‘all” instead of ‘‘many.” Human emotion, 
inability, desire unfulfilled, and the asking of questions must not be ascribed 

59 


60 HISTORICAL AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES 


to Jesus if there is a way of escape. In other words, Mark’s defects must 
be corrected. The difficulty in Mark’s account of the baptism of Jesus 
must be removed." 

2. The Pauline doctrine of the death of Christ as a sacrifice which 
propitiates God and does away with the necessity for further sacrifices is 
taught: ‘‘This is my blood of the new covenant which is shed for many 
for remission of sins” (26:28). 

3. The striking feature of the eschatology is the prominent place given 
to the Son of man as Judge. He shall send forth his angels for judgment 
and to gather together his elect from the four winds, from the uttermost 
bounds of the heavens (13:41-43; 24:31). In the regeneration the Son 
of man shall sit on the throne of his glory and shall render to every man 
according to his deeds (16:27; 19:28; 25:31-46). Even in the Sermon 
on the Mount he is presented in this capacity (7:21). 

tIn his Commentary on Matthew, Allen gives a full list of passages where the 


heightened Christology appears—pp. Xxxi-xxxiii. He gives a good summary of Mat- 
thew’s Christology, pp. lxvi, xvii. 


ΙΘΙΘΟΥ OF THE EPISTLES TO THE 'COLOS— 
SIANS AND THE EPHESIANS: COSMOLOGICAL 
CHRISTOLOGY 


If the epistles to the Colossians and the Ephesians were written by 
Paul, they mark an advance upon the conception of Christ found in his 
other epistles. Inasmuch as the Christology is distinct and more highly 
developed, it is here treated apart from the Pauline Christology, with 
which are its closest affinities, the question of the possibility of Pauline 
authorship being left an open one. If Paul was not the author, no early 
Christian known to us stood so near to him as the writer or writers of 
these epistles. It is possible, but not likely, that Colossians and Ephesians 
have the same author. Akin to Hebrews, they stand between the Pauline 
and the Johannine Christology, representing an interpretation of Christ 
that may be called cosmological. 

COLOSSIANS 


A better case can be made out for the Pauline authorship of Colossians 
than of Ephesians. Colossians probably has as its basis a genuine work 
of Paul, which has been worked over or interpolated. For example, the 
description of the work of redemption perfected in Christ in 1:15-20 may 
be a later amplification. Three influences upon the christological thought 
may be discussed. 

1. Paulinism.—The genuine Paulinism underlying and pervading 
the epistle is too thoroughgoing to require enumeration of details. If this 
is not directly due to Paul himself as the author, it is remarkable in view 
of the fact that in general he was little understood. But the thought of 
Christ is carried a stage farther. In I Cor. 8:6 Paul intimates that Christ 
is the agent in creation, but in Col. 1:16, 17 he is set forth as the author, 
ground, and end—a relation which in Paul’s thought belongs to God 
(I Cor. 15:28; Rom. 11:33-36). In Paul’s teaching the reconciling 
death of Christ was for the benefit of men, with whom Christ identified 
himself, and not for the world of spirits (II Cor. 5:18-21; Rom. 8:3); 
but in Col. 1:20 the thought is that Christ’s death has universal cosmic 
effects, reconciling things on the earth and things in the heavens. 

2. Alexandrianism.—It appears that the Colossian Christians were 
for the most part gentiles, among whom an ascetic and legalistic tendency 
had appeared, not without a decided Jewish color. But the trouble was 
not due to the influence of the Judaizers who were a source of annoyance 
61] 61 


62 HISTORICAL AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES 


to Paul, for the question is not one of circumcision or the observance of 
Jewish law or hostility to Paul’s authority. These errorists did not preach 
another gospel, like the anathematized Judaizers in Galatia, but only an 
alleged higher stage of perfection. They represented not Palestinian 
Judaism, but the freer, more speculative kind prevailing at Alexandria, 
which made itself felt in the world at large and especially in Asia Minor. | 

Now the author meets those who make pretensions to philosophy 
and wisdom on their own ground (2:8, 23). In the spirit of the Alexan- 
drian who wrote Hebrews he applies to Christ language that Philo used 
of the Logos. When he says that Christ is an εἰκὼν τοῦ Θεοῦ τοῦ ἀοράτου 
(1:15), he recalls the language of Paul in II Cor. 4:4, but also the thought 
of Philo that the God who hides himself is revealed through the Logos, 
who mediates the relations of God to the world. Like the Logos, Christ 
is the immanent cosmic principle. Philo says that the incorporeal cosmos 
has its seat in the divine Logos, the cosmos perceptible by the external 
senses being made on the model of it; that the Logos of the Ὄντος being 
the bond of everything holds together (συνέχει) and grasps all the parts, 
and prevents them from being loosened;? that the Logos holds together 
and regulates the whole.3 In Col. 1:17 it is said that in Christ all things 
hold together (συνέστηκεν). Philo called the Logos the firstborn and 
oldest Son of God; in Col. 1:15 Christ is said to be the firstborn of all 
creation, and in Col. 1:18 the firstborn from the dead, recalling also the 
“firstborn among many brethren” of Rom. 8:29 and “‘the firstborn”’ of 
Heb. 1:6. Thus Christ is made the center of cosmology. 

3. Gnosticism.—It was largely under the pressure of the gnostic con- 
troversy of the second century that out of the scattered Christian com- 
munities of the period of which we write the Catholic church was organized, 
with its settled order of government and worship, its formulated creed, and 
its New Testament canon; and it is not customary to speak of Gnosticism 
as existing at the time when these epistles were written. But long before the 
great gnostic systems had been elaborated the movement had begun and 
had excited the suspicion of church-leaders. Its origin was in the aspira- 
tions after deliverance from the bondage of the flesh and the earth on the 
part of an age which, having outgrown the popular religion, attempted 
the construction of something more satisfying in the union of oriental myth 
and Greek philosophy. Eclectic in spirit, it welcomed help from any 
source, not rejecting apocalyptic and Philonic Judaism; but when it 
came into contact with the powerful, vital Christian movement, which 

« De Mundi ΟΡ. to. 

2 De Profug. 20. 3 De Vita Mosis 3:14. 

62 


OUTLINE OF NEW TESTAMENT CHRISTOLOGY 63 


offered the very redemption for which it sought, it had to take a subordinate 
place. 

Though later counted a heresy, incipient Gnosticism at first represented 
a tendency and movement within Christianity. In presenting Christianity 
to the Hellenic world Paul spoke of the gospel in terms of knowledge and 
mystery, and distinguished grades of initiation. He intimated that for 
more advanced, spiritual Christians he had a higher doctrine (I Cor., 
chap. 3). His sharp antithesis of flesh and spirit was in line with tendencies 
in the Greek world. He found it necessary to divert the emphasis of his 
teaching at Corinth from the speculative side. So the errorists at Colossae 
were not counted out of the fold as having denied Christ, but they were 
losing their hold on him (2:19). Prayer was made for the Colossian 
Christians that they might be filled not with speculative, but practical 
knowledge—the knowledge of God’s will (1:9). 

The writer’s conception of Christ takes the form given it by gnostic 
thought. To what extent gnostic speculation had developed at this time 
cannot be said, but at least at a somewhat later period the Gnostics looked 
upon the work of Jesus as but an aspect of a magnificent cosmical process, 
in which he was united with an Aeon from the supernal world. It is against 
some such teaching that our author magnifies the dignity of Christ’s person 
and the completeness of his redemptive work. He is not an Aeon of the 
Pleroma, but in him dwells in bodily form all the fulness (πλήρωμα) of 
deity. He is superior to and sovereign over all the visible and invisible 
forces of the universe. Having rid himself of the principalities and the 
powers, he held them up to open contempt when he triumphed over them 
on the cross (2:15). By his death all things in earth and heaven were 
reconciled to God, so that no place is left for the intermediate agencies of 
Gnosticism. What was sought in the doctrine of the Pleroma was to be 
found in Christ (2:3), fellowship with whom meant participation in the 
divine life. In spite of its pretensions to spirituality, the new teaching was 
materialistic—according to the rudiments of the world (2:8). 


EPHESIANS 


The Epistle to the Ephesians is certainly no letter of the apostle Paul 
to the church at Ephesus, with which he had had such intimate relations 
(:15; 3:2-4). The words ἐν ’Edéow (1:1) are even textually suspicious,’ 
Marcion having read in his copy ἐν Λαοδικείᾳ. It may have been a 

« ἀξ has ἐν ᾿Εφέσῳ only from the hand of a later corrector. B has the words only in 
the margin and not from the first hand. Church Fathers bear witness against any 


indication of place in this passage according to certain early manuscripts with which 


they were familiar. 
63 


64 HISTORICAL AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES 


circular letter addressed by Paul to a definite circle of churches (1:15; 
3:18; 6:18, 21, 22). But while there is ample genuine Paulinism, the 
long, intricate sentences do not seem to have come from his hand, and as 
in Colossians, Pauline ideas are pushed farther. Echoes of the Pauline 
epistles appear everywhere; Ephesians is like an elaborated mosaic. The 
style is elevated and almost lyrical, some passages sounding like bits of 
liturgy. It is a hymn of love and peace and unity, and its theme is Christ 
and the church. The statement that the church is built upon the foun- 
dation of the apostles and prophets (2:20), and the reference to Christ’s 
holy apostles and prophets as the recipients of the revelation of the 
mystery of Christ (3:5), suggest an age considerably beyond that of 
Paul. Apparently the first epistle of Peter had reached Asia Minor and 
was known to the author. 


The relationship between this epistle and Colossians is certainly close. >) 


The Christology of Ephesians does not go beyond that of Colossians. 


ἣ 


| 


There is in the background the same syncretism of oriental theosophy \ 


and Christian faith which characterized gnostic systems and influenced 
even the church conceptions, though the form of error here is libertinism / 
instead of asceticism. Influenced indeed by these speculations, both epistles 
combat the errors from the standpoint of the church in the name of the 
apostle Paul. It would seem that in thought and place of origin they 
stand near the Ignatian and Johannine writings, although removed per- 
haps in time. Profound thought is the weapon used against error, and 
nat as in the Pastoral Epistles ecclesiastical authority and tradition. But 
in Ephesians there is a certain elevation above the concrete; contradictions 
have been abolished in Christ, and the strife and confusions of earth are 
harmonized in the kingdom of God. A new humanity rises in which 
the enmity that divided the old humanity into two hostile camps of Jew 
and gentile has been abolished. When Christ Jesus reconciled men to 
God he did away with the Jewish law that separated men from each other 
(2:13-16). This amalgamation of humanity into a new man, a new 
social fellowship, that is, the church, the mystical body of Christ, in which 
has been abolished the national and ceremonial particularism of Judaism 
so that the heathen who were once far off are taken up into the covenant- 
relationship of the Old Testament church and all have access in one Spirit 
to the Father, rests upon the foreordaining counsel of God before the 
foundation of the world (1:4, 5, 11). But for the present the church must 
wage a conflict with the spiritual powers of the world and make known to 
the principalities and the powers in the heavenlies the manifold wisdom of 
God (3:10; 6:10-18). 


64 


OUTLINE OF NEW TESTAMENT OHRISTOLOGY 65 


It will thus be seen that Colossians is cosmologically and we might 
almost say metaphysically christological, while Ephesians is ecclesiastically 
and soteriologically christological. The conception of the church as the 
body of Christ contained implicitly in Rom. 12:4, 5 and explicitly in I Cor. 
12:12-30, found also in Col. 1:18, 24; 2:19, comes here into the fore- 
ground. It is not a local society, but the church universal—a conception 
not wanting in Paul (I Cor. 10:32; 12:28; 15:9). It is the aks of 
Christ’s love (5: 25-32). 

There is, as in Colossians, the effort to set over against the false and 
destructive Gnosis which did not rightly apprehend and value the Christian 
redemption the true Gnosis of Christ and his redemptive work. The 


gospel-mystery, at first hidden but now revealed to apostles and prophets .~ 


and proclaimed to all, consists of God’s love for the world, his revelation 
in Christ, and the inclusion of the gentiles as fellow-heirs and fellow- 
members of the body and fellow-partakers of the promise in Christ Jesus 
(3:4-6). The emphasis is transferred from knowledge to ethics. The 
higher knowledge is morally conditioned; love is the central virtue and 
energy. The Pleroma of Col. 1:19 and 2:9 is here introduced in connection 
with the church (1:23). 

But while the practical and religious interest is dominant, the speculative 


side is not wanting. The creation of the world by Christ is not directly™ 


stated, God being designated as the Creator of all things in 3:9, but Christ 
is set forth as the cosmical principle of unity. As in Col. 1:16, 17 Christ 
appears as not only the mediator, but also the goal of creation, in whom 
all things find consistency, so in Eph. 1:10 all things in the heavens and 
on the earth are summed up (ἀνακεφαλαιώσασθαι) in Christ, and in 
1:23 he is said to fill all in all. Christ seems to be thought of not merely 
as an individual person, but in some way the content of the totality of the 
elect (1:4; 2:21). He is the realization of the plan of the universe that 
existed in the counsel of God from all eternity, the basis of a unity which 
will embrace the whole creation. 


65 


; 
᾿ 
i 
t 
‘ 
} 
4 


VII.. THE CHRISTOLOGY OF, THE EPISTLE 
TO THE HEBREWS 


Theological interpretations of Jesus may be found in practically all 
the literature of primitive Christianity, but in most cases it is only the 
current Christology of the church in the particular period and region to 
which a given writing belongs. In several instances, however, the Christol- 
ogy is of a bold, original, and individual type, notably in the Pauline, 
Ignatian, and Johannine writings. To the former class belongs the First 
Epistle of Peter, to the latter the Epistle to the Hebrews. The writer of 
Hebrews is no mere Paulinist, but an independent Christian thinker worthy 
of comparison with Paul, Ignatius, and the author of the Fourth Gospel. 
For refinement, culture, precision, elevated and finished literary style, 
combined with vigorous thought, energetic utterance, moral earnestness, 
and practical aim, among the writers of primitive Christianity known to 
us he stands unique. 

The epistle is a word of exhortation (ὃ λόγος THs παρακλήσεως, 13:22), 
addressed with extraordinary dignity and eloquence to sluggish, indifferent, 
and wavering Christians, in imminent danger of falling away from their 
Christian faith, designed to arouse them to a sense of the transcendent 
worth and sufficiency of the Christian revelation. It was not addressed 
πρὸς ’EBpaiovs, nor to Jewish Christians at all, but to Christians in general, 
to a Christian community where race-distinctions no longer obtained, as 
was the case in most of the churches after the older Jewish controversies 
had passed away. The danger is not that of a reversion to Judaism, but 
of an evil, unbelieving heart, an apostasy from the living God, of being 
carried away by divers and strange teachings (3:12; 13:9). Writer and 
readers belonged to the second generation; they were not among those who 
at first heard the words spoken through the Lord, but received from them 
the word (2:3). Paul on the other hand received the gospel not from man, 
nor was he taught it, but directly from the risen Christ (Gal. 1:12); yet he 
acknowledges having received the tradition from others (I Cor. 11:2, 23; 
Tees): 

For the determination of date and destination comparison with First 
Clement (about A. D. 95) is instructive. Its extended use by Clement 
is unmistakable. The sudden and repeated calamities and reverses of 
I Clem. 1:1 in the latter part of the reign of Domitian (81-96) best answer 
to the situation reflected in Hebrews, where the persons addressed are 
66] 66 


OUTLINE OF NEW TESTAMENT CHRISTOLOGY 67 


subject to persecution or have the near prospect of it (12:4-13; 13:3, 23). 
Domitian’s cruel caprice manifested itself after the revolt of Antoninus 
Saturninus in A. Ὁ. 88, the famous cases of Titus Flavius Clemens and 
Flavia Domitilla coming toward the close of his reign. His persecution 
extended to Jews, Christians, and noble Romans.t| Hebrews was then 
written late in Domitian’s reign, shortly before First Clement. With this 
agrees the reference to the Neronian persecution of A. D. 64, in the former 
days, soon after their acceptance of Christ, when they endured a great 
conflict of sufferings and were made a spectacle (10:32, 33). Clement 
makes similar reference to the persecution under Nero (chaps. 5, 6; see also 
Tacitus, Annals, 15:44). In addition to the use by Clement, the references 
to the two persecutions (probably that under Nero was local only), and to 
former great leaders, also the mention of Timothy’s release and the salu- 
tations of those from Italy (13:23, 24), if genuine, tend to confirm the 
Roman destination. 

The author was a literary Hellenist, familiar with Alexandrian philosophy 
and skilful in argumentation, a master of periodic and antithetical Greek 
style. This type of academic and philosophic Judaism was not, however, 
confined to Alexandria. His treatment of Jewish history and religion gives 
the impression of remoteness and detachment; like Philo he speaks of the 
tabernacle and not of the temple, his source of information being the 
Pentateuch. Like Philo he represents the high priest as offering daily 
sacrifices for his own sins and the sins of the people (7:27), but elsewhere 
he shows that he is aware of the fact that it was yearly (9:7, 25). The 
altar of incense is placed within the Most Holy Place instead of in the Holy 
Place (9:4). Contemporary ceremonial Judaism is far from his mind. 
The attitude of Clement of Rome is very much the same; he likewise 
disregards the fact that the temple has been destroyed and the sacrifices 
are no longer offered (chap. 4). Hebrews makes large use of the Greek 
Old Testament; the canon is that of the Septuagint (note Maccabean 
heroes of chap. 11). Clement makes still larger use of the Greek Old 
Testament Scriptures, assuming that his readers knew them (chaps. 45, 53, 
62). The Old Testament constituted the only authoritative Scriptures of the 
Christians themselves at this time. Clement, probably a gentile Chris- 
tian, writing to gentile believers, speaks of ‘‘our father Jacob,” “our 
father Abraham,” and calls Old Testament worthies “‘our fathers” (4:7; 
Ἐπ 5: 62:2: cl. Heb. 1:1; 2:16). 

Relation to Paul.—The dependence of Hebrews upon Paul is generally 

τ Compare the reference to confiscation of property in Heb. 10:34 with Dion 
Cassius, Hist. 87:14. 

67 


68 HISTORICAL AND LINGUISTIO STUDIES 


maintained, but it is not so easy to point out specifically in what such depend- 
ence consists. Paul so influenced the Christian movement in general that 
it would have been something different had he not come into contact with 
it; accordingly no Christian writing in the last decade of the first century 
A. Ὁ. could escape his indirect influence. In the case of First Peter, it is 
not difficult to distinguish the Pauline element. In Hebrews, the Philonic 
influence is evident. Resemblances to Paul in Hebrews there are, but 
evidence of direct indebtedness is not manifest. The pre-existence of 
Christ plays a part in Hebrews, but the idea of pre-existence belonged to 
Jewish messianism, Hellenistic Judaism, and pre-Pauline Christianity as 
well. It is true that Paul made a remarkable ethical and religious use of 
the conception that was unique, and at this point the writer of Hebrews 
was doubtless—in common with others—his debtor. Perhaps Pauline 
influence may be looked for with more confidence in the connection of the 
remission of sins with the death of Christ, and this doctrine upon which 
Paul laid great emphasis is certainly present in Hebrews; yet the point of 
view is different. Taking his words at their face value, Paul teaches that 
Christ bore the curse of the law as the representative of sinful humanity, 
receiving in himself the judgment of death. The satisfaction of the law 
or of the divine righteousness in the death of Christ is not brought to the 


| front in Hebrews. Paul thought in terms of Pharisaic theology; the 
‘writer of Hebrews thought of the Old Testament offerings. Through 


suffering and death Christ became a Savior (2:14-18; 10:5-10); he is 
the high priest who offers his life in obedience and patience, to cleanse the 
hearts of men. Answering to the Pauline doing-away with the curse of 
the law, there is in one passage in Hebrews the destruction of him who 
has the power of death, so as to free those who are in lifelong bondage and 
fear (2:14, 15). For the almost personified law of Paul is here substituted 
the devil, who is not represented as satisfied by a ransom, but as in some 
way overcome by Christ’s sacrificial death. 

It is only on the surface that the epistle is seen to take up the argument 
against Judaism on the lines of Paul; the standpoint is different. The 
conclusions of Paul are assumed; they had already prevailed. Christianity 
had been severed from the Jewish law, and was recognized as a new religion 


‘with a new principle. Of course in a deeper sense the battle against every 


kind of legalism had not been fought to a finish; in this most of Paul’s 

followers failed to catch the full import of his doctrine. Vis conception 

of Christian freedom from the flesh and the law, effected by oneness with 

Christ in his death and resurrection, does not appear in this epistle; an 

approach to this is seen in the proposition that believers are partakers 
68 


OUTLINE OF NEW TESTAMENT CHRISTOLOGY 69 


of Christ and of the Holy Spirit (μέτοχοι τοῦ χριστοῦ, 3:14; 6:4). In 
the first instance the relationship is that to a leader or elder brother, and 
probably not that of mystic union: partners of Christ. For Paul faith 
meant life-union with Christ; in Hebrews it is akin to obedience, fidelity, 
heroism, and belief in the unseen. 

To the Jew the ritual side of his religion was of subordinate interest. 
Judaism was able to survive the destruction of its temple and holy city in 
A.D. 70. So Hebrews is not concerned with the temple, but the tabernacle. 
Paul was interested in neither; passing by the temple and external worship 

‘of Judaism he fixed his attention upon its very heart—the law. Now for 
the purpose of his argument the author of Hebrews finds the soul of Old 
Testament religion in the priestly cultus. He is not engaged in the old 
Pauline conflict with the Judaizers, nor is he even making a plea primarily 
for Christianity against Judaism; rather it is his effort to set forth Chris- 
tianity as the perfect, eternal religion, better at every point than the only 
pre-Christian and non-Christian religion worthy of consideration in com- 
parison, one based on a real revelation. Paul considers the law in relation 
to justifying faith in Christ; Hebrews in relation to the perfection of Christ’s 
sacrifice. For Paul the law is weak only through the flesh—through its 
incapacity to enable a man to obey the will of God (Rom. 8:2); it cannot 
save because man is morally impotent to keep it. The office of the law is 
to deepen the consciousness of sin and to make transgressions abound. 
On the other hand, viewing it in its ceremonial aspects Hebrews considers 
it carnal (7:16; 9:10), its failure being due to the fact that animal sacrifices 
cannot cleanse the conscience. Judaism’s partial truth is perceived, as a 
system of types and symbols foreshadowing the reality in Christ. The 
law and the gospel are shadow and substance. 

_/- Generally, the emphasis in Hebrews is different from that in the epistles 

‘of Paul. It is notable that Paul was not able to find so great a value in the 

. earthly life and experiences of Jesus as our author finds. His present 

activity in our behalf is differently represented. ‘To be sure Paul does in 
one instance describe Christ as the intercessor in heaven on our behalf 

(Rom. 8:34). Only in one passage is there reference to the resurrection 

of Christ in Hebrews (13:20). 

Relation to Philo—The Epistle to the Hebrews is a Christian work 
written from the standpoint of philosophic Judaism. We have noted the 
absence of direct dependence on Paul; very different is the relation to the 
Book of Wisdom and to Philo. Doubtless the author had felt the influence 
of Philo before his conversion to Christianity. His allegorizing exegesis 
discloses his Alexandrian education. The allegorical interpretation was 

69 


70 HISTORICAL AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES 


indeed current in rabbinic circles of Palestine, but this author’s method is 
that of Philo—employing historical characters, institutions, and events as 
symbols of spiritual realities. Points of contact with Philo are found 
almost everywhere, and the conclusion is irresistible that often there are 
genuine echoes. To be sure our author is more temperate than Philo 
in allegorizing the Old Testament. Even the more striking resemblances 
are too numerous to exhibit here; the reader is referred for details to 
Siegfried, Philo von Alexandria, S. 321-30. 

It would have been strange had our author not employed the Logos-con- 
ception of Philo. The fact is that he uses it on a far larger scale than does 
the writer of the Fourth Gospel, only he does not take over the word; 
another title used by Philo of the Logos was already in Christian use and 
served his purposes better—the Son of God. The striking designations 
of Christ and the functions attributed to him in Heb. 1:2, 3 may be found 
in the Book of Wisdom and in Philo, there having reference to Wisdom 
personified and the Logos. Of Wisdom it is said in a notable passage 
(Wis. 7:26): 

For she is an effulgence (ἀπαύγασμα) of eternal light, 
And an immaculate mirror of God’s energy, 
And an image of his goodness. 


Philo says that every man in regard to his intellect is related to the divine 
reason, being an ἀπαύγασμα of that blessed nature;t and that the πνεῦμα 
in man is a certain type and χαρακτήρ of the divine power, man in his 
reason being the image of God.?_ A favorite conception with Philo is that 
of the Logos as the agent through whom God fashioned the world. In 
De Plantat. 5 he says: ὁ χαρακτήρ ἐστιν ἀΐδιος Adyos. In Heb. 1:6 the Son 
is designated πρωτότοκος; so Philo often calls the Logos God’s πρωτόγονος 
vids (as in De A gricult. 12). 

Just as Philo does not scruple to call the Logos a second God (6 
δεύτερος eds) ,3 though dependent on the one original God, so the writer of 
Hebrews applies to Christ passages from the Psalms in which God is 
addressed, setting forth his eternal royal dignity and creative role (1 :8-12); 
yet what Christ did was part of God’s own plan and under his direction 
(2:9, 10; 5:4, 5)- 

In Philo the Logos is not only the mediator of creation, but also of 

1 De Mundi Opif. 51. 

2 Quod Det. Pot. Insid. 23. 

3 Found only in one passage, which is preserved by Eusebius, Praeparatio Evan- 
gelica, Bk. VII, chap. xiii. See E. H. Gifford’s edition, Eusebit Praeparatio Evangelica, 
1903; also Drummond, Philo Judaeus, 11, p. 197. 

70 


OUTLINE OF NEW TESTAMENT CHRISTOLOGY 71} 


redemption: the great high priest, exposed to affliction and misery, an 
ambassador sent to the subject race;! not a man, but the divine Word, a 
non-participant in both voluntary and involuntary sins;? the priest-king 
typified in Melchizedek (Gen. 14:18-20; Ps. 110:4)—the names Mel- 
chizedek and Salem being treated in the same etymological manner as that 
we find in Hebrews. 

Perhaps the most fundamental and significant fact is that the general 
view of the world—the cosmology—is the same in Philo and Hebrews: 
the contrast between the ἐκ τῶν ἰδεῶν συσταθεὶς κόσμος νοητός and the 
sensuous, visible world.4 The visible world is a copy, a shadow and 
symbol of the invisible, spiritual world; created things are perishable, 
divine things eternal. Plato and Philo distinguish the sensible and the 
intelligible worlds; so Hebrews contrasts the lower world of semblances 
and the heavenly world of abiding realities, related as type and reality, 
shadow and substance (ὑπόδειγμα καὶ σκιὰ τῶν ἐπουρανίων, 8:5; παραβολὴ 
εἰς τὸν καιρὸν τὸν ἐνεστηκότα, 9:9; ὑποδείγματα τῶν ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς, 
ἀντίτυπα τῶν ἀληθινῶν, Heb. 9:23, 24). In Philo the mediator of the 
two worlds is the Logos, the firstborn son of God; for the author of Hebrews 
the heavenly sanctuary is accessible through Christ, the Son of God. 
There is indeed a vast difference between Philo and our author, but it 
consists in the fact that the latter wasa Christian. Philo’s abstract theories 
are made to do religious service. ‘The chasm between this mundane sphere 
and the supernal world of eternal realities is bridged and free access to the 
throne of grace is gained when the Logos, the great high priest, the first- 
born son of God, the second God of Philo, becomes the Jesus of history, 
the Brother and Savior of men (4:14-16). Philo was still in a way in 
bondage to the letter and groping in the dark; but his pupil had learned 
also from a higher Master, and now used Philo’s own method and thought- 
forms to show that what was formerly the world’s divinest religion must 
be considered but a shadow-copy since the revelation of the substance, the 
perfect spiritual covenant in Jesus Christ. 

Summing up the thought of Hebrews, we observe that the new is supe- 


‘rior to the old because Christ is higher than the angels, through whom the 


old came (Acts 7:53; Gal. 3:19; LXX of Deut. 33:2), higher than the 
prophets, whose revelation was partial (1:1), higher than Moses who 
organized the old and than Joshua who ushered in an inferior rest, higher 

t Outs Rer. Div. Haer. 42. 

2 De Profug. 20, 21. 

3 Leg. Alleg. 3:25, 26; Heb. 5:10; 7:1-I0. 

4 De Somn. 1:32. 

71 


12 HISTORICAL AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES 


than Aaron and all earthly priests who ministered in the old. He is the 
Son of God, his agent in creation, revelation, and redemption (cf. 1:3 and 
Col. 1:15-17); in him is realized man’s world-dominion of prophecy 
(2:5-10); he established the Old Testament system (3:3; cf. I Cor. 10:4); 
he is our high priest from heaven, but one of us, possessing sympathy as a 
priest should; immortal, abiding a priest forever, higher than the heavens, 
a son holy and perfected for evermore, minister of a convenant that endures 
in a heavenly tabernacle with spiritual ordinances, offering his own blood 
which is efficacious for the cleansing of the conscience from dead works 
to the service of the living God, putting away sin, obtaining eternal redemp- 
tion, and perfecting forever them that are sanctified—in such language 
is set forth the superiority and perfection of the priestly character and work 
of Christ. To Christians who were growing discouraged under persecution 
and in danger of lapsing into their former heathenism the writer exhibits the 
glory of Christ’s person and work, reminding them of the blessings he has 
secured and the terrible consequences of neglecting his salvation and deny- 
ing him. 

Hebrews presents a remarkable combination of the philosophic and 
the historical. The facts of the evangelic tradition are known (1:2, 3; 
2:3: 4, £3, 14, 175 3:23) 535-05 7:4, 205 ΤΟΙ; La:2, 35 ΡΟ ΕΣ, ΘΝ": 
recalling of the gospel-narrative where Jesus calls men his own brothers 
is notable (2:11, 12). The language in which Melchizedek is set forth as 
a type of non-Aaronic priesthood, underived and unlimited, having no} 
father or mother (7:3; cf. 10:5), might lend itself to docetic Gnosticism, 
but such is not in the mind of the author: ‘for it is evident that our Lord 
sprang from Judah” (7:14). ‘These earthly, human experiences by which 
he came to understand man’s infirmities and needs were a preparation for 
his highpriesthood in our behalf; the center of interest is his heavenly 
activity on our behalf, offering sacrifice and interceding with God. He 
came out of the heavenly world, lived through the eternal Spirit a life of 
faith, courage, obedience, sinlessness, sympathy, and self-sacrifice, and 
passed into the heavens as our perfect high priest—the same yesterday and 
today and forever. 

There are several striking facts about Christ’s sacrificial priestly work 
as here presented. Certainly he offered himself upon the cross once for all 
(7:27; 9:14, 25, 20; 10:12, 26), the word λύτρωσις occurring twice 
(9:12, 15) and καταλλαγή, common with Paul, not at all. But his supreme 
function is as high priest in heaven, and sometimes it appears that it was 

t Philo says of the Logos-priest that God was the father and wisdom the mother, 


De Profug. 20. 
72 


OUTLINE OF NEW TESTAMENT CHRISTOLOGY ao 


upon the heavenly altar he presented himself as a sacrifice to God (9:14). 
His single and final sacrifice on earth has a counterpart in an offering at 
the heavenly altar, and there is also a perpetual atoning work carried on 
in the upper sanctuary. Secondly, the blood of Christ is not only sacri- 
ficial, but also cleansing. Sanctification did not belong to the priestly 
office of the Jews, but his cleansing is not ceremonial, but real and inward, 
securing deliverance from the power of sin (9:13, 14, 26, ἀθέτησις τῆς 
ἁμαρτίας). As in First Peter, the stress is upon the moral effects of Christ’s 
sacrifice (καθαρίζειν, ἁγιάζειν, τελειοῦν). How this purification is wrought 
is not here elaborated; the fact is one of religious experience. Paul 
would have said that it was through the indwelling Christ, transform- 
ing the believer by his Spirit. 

Eschatology—The common eschatological ideas of the period are 
found: Christ’s appearance a second time apart from sin to complete 
the salvation of his own (9:28; 10:25, 37); the approaching day when 
earth and heaven shall tremble and things not stable be overthrown, and 
the kingdom that cannot be shaken shall remain (12:26-28); the sabbath- 
rest of the messianic age typified by the rest of Canaan (σαββατισμός, 
4:9); the better and abiding possession, the great recompense of reward, 
the better, heavenly country, the city that has foundations, whose 
builder and maker is God, the heavenly Jerusalem inhabited by a host 
of angels and saints (10:34, 35; 11:10, 16; 12:22, 23)—all of which will 
outweigh the hardships of the present life. Salvation is future, dependent 
upon the faithful observance of God’s will; but faith now makes it present 
—the substance of what we hope for, the proof of things that we do not 
see (11:1). Colored as is his language with current eschatology, the 
author comes very near transcending that standpoint through his doctrine 
of immediate access to the world of reality, as Paul did by his doctrine of 
the indwelling Christ and the Fourth Gospel did by its doctrine of the 
Spirit and eternal life. Christianity is identified with the upper, heavenly 
world, which is indeed future, but is also present, and indeed from the 
beginning has been the world of reality, so that even now men can taste 
the good word of God and the powers of the age to come (6:5). 


73 


ΨΠΙ CHRISTOLOGY IN FIRST PETER AnD 
FIRST CLEMENT 


FIRST PETER 


Questions of introduction to First Peter present, in the words of Wrede, 
“eine Reihe von Schwierigkeiten und Dunkelheiten.”! The difficulties 
are created by the address and the conclusion, and Harnack solves the 
problem by removing the address and the conclusion altogether, under- 
standing 5:1 (μάρτυς τῶν τοῦ χριστοῦ παθημάτων) not in a literal sense.? 
According to this view the author was a prominent teacher and confessor 
of about 90 A. D., perhaps earlier, who did not pretend to be Peter. An- 
other, probably the author of Second Peter, invented the beginning and the 
end of the epistle in order to give it apostolic authority. The view of 
McGiffert3 is similar, except that he holds to its true epistolary character 
(1:3, 4,12; 2:13; 4:12; 5:1-5,9). The epistle was, he thinks, originally 
anonymous, like Hebrews, Barnabas, and the Johannine epistles, and the 
name of Peter was attached in the second century, some scribe probably 
writing it on the margin of the manuscript, because he thought he saw 
reason for regarding it as the work of Peter. If we take the epistle as it 
stands, the only reasonable theory open to us is that of pseudonymity, 
unless indeed we make Silvanus responsible for the epistle in the name of 
Peter. That was an age in which men could think it a virtue for a writer 
to withhold his own name in favor of some great master. It must be 
acknowledged that this straightforward epistle does not bear such palpable 
marks of pseudepigraphy as for example Second Peter. But in view of the 
pseudepigraphic customs of the time it is conceivable that a Roman Chris- 
tian, wishing to issue a letter of consolation to his persecuted fellow-Chris- 
tians of Asia Minor under an apostolic title, chose the name of Peter. In 
fact we know six early Christian writings connected with the name of 
Peter—the two canonical letters, the Acts, the Gospel, the Preaching, and 
the Apocalypse of Peter. Great as are the difficulties in connection with 
the authorship of First Peter, the most difficult position of all would be the 
assumption that Peter, the apostle of the circumcision, wrote in fairly good 
Greek, even with the help of Silvanus, this letter, saturated as it is with 

τ “Bemerkungen zu Harnack’s Hypothese iiber die Adresse des I. Petrusbriefs,’’ 
Zeitschrift fiir N. Τ᾽. Wissenschaft, I, 1900, S. 75-85—an able reply to Harnack. 

2 Chronologie, S. 451-65. 

3 Apostolic Age, p. 596. 

74] 74 


OUTLINE OF NEW TESTAMENT CHRISTOLOGY {iy 


characteristic Pauline thought and vocabulary, to gentile churches of Asia 
Minor founded chiefly by Paul. 

The conditions set forth in the epistle, reflecting a general persecution 
of Christians as such (4:15, 16; 5:9), are best satisfied by the reign of 
Domitian (81-96), and the doctrinal affinities are mostly with the literature 
of this period. But we must leave open the possibility of a date within 
the reign of Trajan (98-117), either about 100 (Jiilicher) or about 112 A.D. 
The fact that one suffered ὡς χριστιανός (4:15) reminds us of the famous 
letter of Pliny to Trajan regarding the treatment of Christians, about 112 
A.D., and if we take the word ἀλλοτριεπίσκοπος in the same verse to 
refer to the judicial informer, the delator, which is not necessary, this late 
date is confirmed. But this would take the epistle far down toward the 
terminus ad quem, the letter of Polycarp (ca. 116 A. D.), which makes frequent 
quotation from First Peter. If the use of First Peter by Clement of Rome 
could be established, the year 95 would be the terminus ad quem, but the 
numerous striking resemblances (for example, ἀγάπη καλύπτει πλῆθος 
ἁμαρτιῶν, I Pet. 4:8, and I Clem. 49:5) may be explained by proximity of 
date and place of composition. 

First Peter was written apparently from Rome (5:13; Apoc. 14:8. 
So far as we know, Babylon played small part in early Christian history) 
to Christians of Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia (1:1)— 
five provinces that comprise the whole of Asia Minor north of Mt. Taurus. 
Though παρεπίδημοι Διασπορᾶς, the readers were in general gentile 
believers (1:14, 18; 2:9, 10; 4:3, 4). The purpose of the epistle is to 
admonish and encourage (παρακαλεῖν, 5:12) its readers patiently to 
endure sufferings that have come upon them on account of their Christian 
confession and to live in every way worthy of the Christian name. The 
incentives to this course are to be found in the hope of a blessedness to 
be obtained through suffering and obedience, and in the example of Christ. 
The common church-doctrine is employed wherever it will serve the prac- 
tical aim. While the object is not indoctrination, for the writer the Chris- 
tian world-view lies behind all right thinking and right conduct. The 
epistle offers no original doctrinal contribution to the development of early 
Christianity, but it does bring incidentally to light ideas that are not given 
definite expression in other writings that have come down to us from the 
period to which it belongs. 

The epistle is then not to be understood as in any sense representing 
the most primitive Christianity—either as actually pre-Pauline, or as 
Petrine with comparatively slight Pauline influence. We find here no 
genuine reminiscence of Jesus and no echo of the old controversies about 

75 


76 HISTORICAL AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES 


the law and faith and the relative standing of Jew and gentile. The 
permanent Pauline contributions to Christianity are presupposed through- 
out, but by this time the sharp points of his system have been worn down. 
Some of Paul’s characteristic expressions and ideas are employed, especially 
from Romans, but the specifically Pauline thoughts of justification by 
faith, freedom from the law, dying to the flesh and living in the Spirit, 
mystical union with Christ, are wanting. Paul’s use of baptism in Rom. 
6:3: ‘‘All we who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his 
death,” recurs after a fashion in I Pet. 3:21. In this chapter Paul con- 
tinues in his striking and profound mystical manner (Rom. 6:6 ff.): “Our 
old man was crucified with him, that the body of sin might be done away, 
that we should no longer be in bondage to sin, for he that has died is justi- 
fied from sin,” etc.; whereas in I Pet. 4:1 it is expressed: ‘‘He that has suf- 
fered in the flesh has ceased from sin.”’ On the other hand the conscious- 
ness of the value of Christianity, of the high and peculiar calling of God’s 
people, of the greatness and preciousness of the promises, of the sacred 
obligations of the Christian profession, are no less clear and impressive 
than with Paul.t 

We now inquire what lies central in the doctrinal background from 
which this practical homily proceeds. That which for the writer comes 
first is the revelation of God and a way of life in Christ. His religious 
world is the Christian world, his view of God is that which has historically 
come from Christ; he worships ‘‘the God and Father of our Lord Jesus 
Christ” (1:3); God is a faithful Creator (4:19), is mighty (5:6), is holy 
(1:5), is judge of living and dead (4:5), is one who judges righteously 
(2:23) and without respect of persons (1:17), is one who foreknows the 
elect (1:12), is one who resists the proud (5:5); but he is above all Father 
(1:17)'and the God of all grace (5:10), is long suffering (3:20) and merci- 
ful (1:3). The means by which this grace is communicated is the preach- 
ing of the gospel, the word of good news which is preached (1:12, 25). 
This then is the first and most general item in the writer’s Christology: 
the God he worships is, as he thinks, the God of Jesus, and his readers 
are οἱ δι᾽ αὐτοῦ πιστοὶ εἰς Θεόν (1:21). In Christianity, in Christ, he 
finds a helpful, satisfying experience of God, and as a correlate of that 
faith the true way of life. 

The second item in his christological faith is the redemptive death of 
Christ. ‘‘For Christ also died once for sins as the righteous one for the 
unrighteous, that he might bring us to God” (3:18). He “‘bore our sins in 
his body on the tree, that having died unto sins he might live unto righteous- 

t So Pfleiderer, Das Urchristentum, 2d ed. (1902), II, S. 506. 

76 


OUTLINE OF NEW TESTAMENT CHRISTOLOGY ane 


ness; by whose bruise you were healed” (2:24). This language means 
just what it seems to mean; namely, that, as it is expressed in Heb. 9: 28, 
Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many, and it is here added that 
the cross was the altar upon which he was offered. The writer constantly 
uses the conception of Isa., chap. 53. ΤῸ be sure, there is introduced an 
ethical significance: in Christ’s sacrificial death there is an example for 
our imitation; those to whom he writes were redeemed from their vain 
heathen life handed down from their fathers, with the precious blood of 
Christ, as of a lamb without spot and without blemish (1:18, 19), and in 
suffering for them Christ has given them an example, that they should 
follow his steps (2:21). But fundamental is the thought of the expiatory 
death, though the use made of the death of Christ is ethical. 

An ever-present thought is that of the coming glory of Christ, when he 
is revealed, and in this Christians shall share. Its certainty rests on his 
resurrection and exaltation. God has begotten us again unto a living 
hope through the resurrection of Christ from the dead (1:3). This hope 
has been awakened by the preaching of the gospel; the readers have been 
begotten through the living and abiding word of God (1:23). The test 
and fruit of Christian faith and hope are to be found in obedience, which 
consists in a holy life after the character of God (1:14-16); more especially 
in patient endurance of suffering, and in fervent brotherly love, which 
covers a multitude of sins (1:22; 4:8). 

The christological peculiarities are the doctrine of the inspiration of 
the prophets through the spirit of the pre-existing Christ, and that of the 
descent of Christ to Hades for the purpose of preaching to the spirits in 
prison, and for this reason a fuller treatment will be accorded these subjects 
than has been given to other features of the Petrine Christology. 

τ. Upon the first topic the following are the passages to come before us: 

“For this Christ was indeed destined before the foundation of the 
world, but he has been manifested at the end of the times for your sake” 
(1:20). 

«ΤῸ this salvation the prophets, who prophesied in regard to the grace 
intended for you, directed their inquiries and researches, seeking to find 
out to what season or what kind of a season the spirit of Christ within them 
was pointing, when testifying in advance to the sufferings which would 
befall Christ and the glories which would follow; and to them it was revealed 
that not for themselves but for you were they performing this service in 
regard to truths which have been announced to you through those who, 
by the Holy Spirit sent from heaven, have brought you the good tidings— 
matters into which angels are longing to look” (1:10-12). 

77 


78 HISTORICAL AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES 


In the first of these passages we find contrasted the foreknowledge by 
God of Christ before the foundation of the world and his manifestation 
at the end of the times. As the translation given above implies, fore- 
knowledge (προεγνωσμένου is the form here) in this passage as elsewhere 
in the Scriptures (‘‘Before I formed thee in the womb I knew thee”—Jer. 
1:5) is not colorless prescience, but previous designation to a position or 
function.t The idea of Christ’s designation before the foundations of the 
world were laid is a familiar one, finding frequent expression both in 
Jewish messianism and in Christian literature (Eph. 3:11; Il Tim. 1:9). 

‘“‘Foreknown”’ by itself does not of course necessarily imply the personal 
pre-existence of the object foreknown; the expression is used of believers 
inI Pet. 1:2. But pre-existence is taken for granted, and the second clause 
places it beyond all doubt. That which is manifested existed in a state of 
concealment before its manifestation. Nowhere is it said of believers that 
they were first foreknown before the foundation of the world and then 
manifested. In some of the passages either in a primary or a secondary 
sense Pauline it is the mystery concerning Christ which is manifested, as 
in Rom. 16:25, 26: ‘“‘the mystery kept in silence through times eternal, 
but now manifested;” but in the passage before us it is Christ himself 
who is manifested. 

Both clauses find an exact parallel in Enoch 48:6, 7: ‘‘And for this 
reason he has been chosen and hidden before him before the creation of 
the world and forevermore, and the wisdom of the Lord of Spirits has 
revealed to him the holy and righteous;” and again, 62:7: ‘‘For the Son 
of man was hidden before him and the Most High preserved him in the 
presence of his might and revealed him to the elect.”” To these may be 
added Apocalypse of Ezra 12:32: ‘‘This is the anointed one, whom the 
Most High has kept to the end of days, who shall spring up out of the seed 
of David, and he shall come and speak to them and reprove them for their 
wickedness and their unrighteousness, and shall heap up before them their 
contemptuous dealings.” In I Tim. 3:16 we have a fragment of an early 
Christian hymn, of which the first line is: ‘‘He was manifested in the 
flesh” (ἐφανερώθη ἐν σαρκί. The idea is common in the Johannine 
writings: John 1:14, 31; I John 3:5, 8, for example.” 

In the second passage it is stated that the prophets of old who foretold 


« See Hort, Commentary, on this passage. 


2 It will be seen that First Peter is using, not the Pauline conception of an incarna- 
tion, but the messianic conception of a revelation. For Paul, Christ’s appearance 
was not a mere φανεροῦσθαι, but a κενοῦσθαι, ταπεινοῦσθαι, πτωχεύειν. So Harnack, 
History of Dogma, I, p. 328. 

78 


OUTLINE OF NEW TESTAMENT CHRISTOLOGY 49 


the messianic salvation sought to fathom its meaning and to determine at 
what appointed date it would come; the Spirit of Christ within them 
pointed out the sufferings that would come upon Christ and the glories that 
would follow them, and it was revealed to them that the realization of 
their vision was not for their own time, but for the recipients of the good 
tidings in the time of the Holy Spirit’s ministration. 

The problem here is to determine in what sense the Spirit of Christ 
inspired the prophets. Kiihl' understands the reference of the ideal Christ, 
who existed only in the foreknowledge of God. Hort says: ‘‘This cannot 
possibly mean the sufferings of Christ in our sense of the word, i. e., the 
sufferings which as a matter of history befell the historical Christ.”” Why 
not? “It is intelligible only from the point of view of the prophets and 
their contemporaries, the sufferings destined for Messiah.”’ But the New 
Testament writers did not take the point of view of the prophets and their 
contemporaries; they wrote from their own standpoint. Their presupposi- 
tion was the identity of the Old Testament and the New Testament sal- 
vation; see, for example, I Pet. 1:25. The use of Christ’s pre-existence in 
this connection is but a part of the process of Christianizing the Old Testa- 
ment. The Old Testament was the Bible of the Christians, and they read 
back into it their new experiences. The conception of sufferings destined 
for the Christ is a common one: as in Luke 24:26, 46; Acts 3:18; 17:3. 
In Acts 26:22, 23 we are told that Paul testified (μαρτυρόμενος), saying 
nothing but what the prophets and Moses had said should come, how that 
the Christ must suffer. There is no sharp contrast between the pre-existent 
Christ and the historic Christ, and of ‘‘the ideal Christ” the writer knew 
nothing. 

The conception was common that the Holy Spirit is the source of 
prophecy (Acts τ: τό and often). In Paul’s thought the Spirit and Christ 
are very closely related, indeed at times used almost interchangeably 
(I Cor. 12:3; II Cor. 3:17, 18). In the period in which our writing arose 
there was no difficulty in considering Christ as the inspirer of prophecy, 
whether as pre-existent, historic, or glorified. The historic Christ was 
represented as the revealer (Matt. 11:27; characteristically in the Fourth 
Gospel, as 1:18), in whose name men prophesied (Matt. 7:22), and who 
sent forth prophets (23:34). The exalted Christ poured forth the spirit 
of prophecy from heaven (Acts 2:33). ‘‘The testimony of Jesus is the 
spirit of prophecy” (Apoc. 19:10). Between Hebrew and Christian 
prophecy there is in this respect no distinction; in each instance Christ 
inspired the prophets. So Barnabas in chap. 5: ‘‘The prophets, who 


1 Meyer, Kommentar. 


79 


80 HISTORICAL AND LINGUISTIO STUDIES 


received grace from him, prophesied of him” (of προφῆται, ἀπ᾽ αὐτοῦ 
ἔχοντες THY χάριν, εἰς αὐτὸν ἐπροφήτευσαν). 

The prophetic searching for the time of messianic deliverance will be 
recognized as a characteristic of Jewish messianism. An instance of such 
inquiry is in Dan., chap. 9, where the seer discovers in the prophecy of 
Jeremiah (25:11, 12; 29:10) that the number of years for the accomplish- 
ing of the desolations of Jerusalem was seventy. But as the Jews were 
still being oppressed by the heathen and the temple was again desolated, 
he was perplexed by the prediction. While he was praying, the man 
Gabriel flew swiftly and caused him to understand the vision. He explained 
that the period was not seventy years, but seventy weeks of years, and that 
after the 490 years were ended reconciliation for iniquity would be made, 
the polluted temple reconstructed, and the messianic age introduced. 

The service that the prophets were rendering a future age is also fre- 
quently brought out in apocalyptic literature. Daniel was to close and 
seal the book till the time of the end (12:4, 9). Our passage may even be 
a quotation from Enoch 1:2: ‘‘I understood what I saw, but not for this 
generation, but for the remote generations that are to come." The 
interest of the angels in these matters may have been suggested by Enoch 
g:1. The thought is closely akin to that of Eph. 3:10. 

2. Our second special topic is set forth in the following passages: 

“ΤῊ the spirit also he went and preached to the spirits in prison, who 
had once been disobedient, when the patience of God waited, in the days 
of Noah, while the ark was being prepared; into which a few souls, that 
is eight, escaped through water” (3:19, 20). 

‘“‘For this is why the good tidings were preached even to the dead, in 
order that they might be judged indeed as men in the flesh, but live accord- 
ing to God in spirit” (4:6). 

The objection to the obvious sense of the passages before us has 
been principally the strangeness of the conception. Perhaps a closer 
acquaintance with the eschatology then current will remove this. Sheol, 
the dark underworld in which the ghosts of the dead flitted about, had 
become a definite and familiar region to the thought of late Judaism. In 
the older prophetic stage Jehovah’s self-manifestations were mostly bound 
up with the nation’s fortunes, although there were even then current among 


17. R. Harris (Expositor, V1, iv, 194-99) suggests an interesting emendation. 
Compare the following passages: Enoch 1:2; Matt. 13:17; Luke 10:24; I Pet. 1:12, 
13. In the latter passage διηκόνουν is a textual error for διενοοῦντο, after διενοούμην 
of Enoch 1:2. Then there should be no break in the paragraph, I Pet. 1:13 following 
naturally with διανοίας. 


80 


OUTLINE OF NEW TESTAMENT CHRISTOLOGY 81 


the people ideas regarding the abode of God and his angels and the region 
of the departed (Gen. 28:12; Exod. 24:10; I Kings 22:19; Isa., chap. 6; 
Ezek., chap.1). Passages on Sheol are too numerous to cite. See also Gress- 
mann (Ursprung der israelitisch-jiidischen Eschatologie). The Old Testa- 
ment Sheol is essentially the Homeric Hades. This conception prevailed till 
the second century B. c., though individual voices had been raised against 
it in favor of a more moral and religious view. Then it became a place 
where men are treated according to their deserts with separate divisions 
for the righteous and the wicked. The idea of an intermediate state also 
entered. Finally it was used of the abode of the wicked only, either as 
their preliminary or their final abode. Gehenna was the place of final 
condemnation. ; 

In order to realize the change from the Old Testament Sheol, a place 
of a semi-conscious, non-moral state of existence, where family, national, 
and social distinctions of this world are in a way preserved, to a place of 
fully conscious existence, where distinctions are primarily moral, we 
should pass in review the Book of Enoch, the Book of the Secrets of Enoch, 
and the Testament of Levi. We note in this other-world the freedom with 
which spirits come and go and converse is held. A second instructive 
observation is the solicitude and sympathy now and then manifested for 
those whose lot is hard. This latter characteristic comes out most strik- 
ingly and most beautifully in the Apocalypse of Ezra. The writer’s heart 
is not satisfied with contemplation of the messianic, eschatological pro- 
gramme according to which this evil world will be destroyed and a new 
world take its place, for ‘‘the world to come will bring delight to few, but 
torments unto many” (7:47). The fact is that his difficulties are never 
satisfactorily met. It is likely that there were others both in Judaism and 
Christianity who shared the same concern in regard to the destiny of sinful 
men after death. 

The descensus ad inferos appears a number of times in the Christian 
literature of the New Testament period. It is a special form of the belief 
that is found in First Peter. Certain descriptions of Sheol by Old Testa- 
ment prophets seem to have influenced the New Testament development 
of the conception, as Isa. 14:9,10; 24:21, 22; 42:7; 49:9; 61:1, 2; Ezek. 
32:17-32. Some significant New Testament passages are the following: 
I Cor. 15:29; Rom. 10:6, 7; 14:9; Phil. 2:5-11; Matt. 12:40; 27:52; Acts 
2:27-31; Eph. 4:8 τὸ; 5:14; Apoc. 1:18; 3:7; 5:13; 0:0 11’ 20:7. 
To these may be added the Epistle of Ignatius to the Magnesians 9:3 and 
Hermas, Sim. 9:16:5, 6. In the Gospel of Peter it is related that a voice 
from the heavens was heard on the morning of the resurrection: ‘‘Hast thou 

81 


82 HISTORICAL AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES 


preached to those that sleep?” And an answer was heard from the cross: 
ΤῊΝ otis 

It would be easy to show how congenial the conception was to the larger 
world into which Christianity was entering, which had its own stories of 
how divine beings had gone down into the kingdom of the dead and returned 
victoriously, but the form in which the conception appears in First Peter 
is explicable without resorting to foreign influences.* 

We see, then, that belief in the descent of Christ into Sheol or Hades 
after death was natural and necessary in the light of the ancient view of 
the world, and that it appears again and again. We find suggestions that 
in connection with his presence there divine power was exercised. We 
know that among Jews and Christians there was concern for those who had 
died in their sins. A fundamental declaration in the Christian message 
was that salvation is possible only in Christ (Acts 4:12). So far as regards 
the present generation Paul had applied to Christian preaching the words 
of Ps. 1924: 

Their sound went forth into all lands, 
And their words into all the world. (Rom. ro: 18.) 


They had had and would have their chance. But to former generations 
had not been granted the opportunity of believing on Christ. Now as 
Christ was once in Hades, he must have preached to them there. 

There are other interpretations of these passages in First Peter, the 
most probable of which is that which identifies the spirits in prison with 
the fallen angels—the sons of God of Gen. 6:1-4, and the sinful angels 
of the Book of Enoch, who had seduced the daughters of men and whom 
God cast down to Tartarus (Jude 6; II Pet. 2:4). According to one view 
the text of I Pet. 3:19 may be emended so as to read that Enoch preached 
to the spirits; according to another view Christ after his death proclaimed 
their judgment. But κηρύσσειν is uniformly the preaching of salvation, and 
the proclamation of judgment to angels is not appropriate to the context.? 


FIRST CLEMENT 


Arising in all probability at about the same time and in the same place 
as First Peter and resembling it in thought and language, the First Epistle 


t See Pfleiderer, Das Urchristentum, II, 5. 181, 288, and Clemen, Religionsge- 
schichtliche Erklérung des Neuen Testaments, S. 153-56, with full reference to the 
literature in Clemen. The defect of Clemen’s treatment is that he is afraid of making 
‘Can unnecessary concession to the religionsgeschichtliche Schule.” 

2 A fuller treatment of ‘Christology in First Peter’? may be found in an article 
by the present writer to appear in the American Journal of Theology, 1910. 


82 


OUTLINE OF NEW TESTAMENT CHRISTOLOGY 83 


of Clement to the Corinthians has for us further interest and value, in that 
it is the earliest non-canonical Christian writing that we possess, although 
many scholars continue to date the Epistle of Barnabas still earlier. The 
letter was evidently written about a generation after Nero and after the death 
of the apostles Paul and Peter (5:1; 44:2). The persecution experienced 
at the time of writing was more annoying than bloody (1:1; 7:1), 
and answers to that of Domitian, who vexed the Roman church during 
the last years of his reign. The name Clement does not occur in the letter, 
but according to tradition Clement, the third or fourth bishop of Rome, 
wrote it by order of the congregation. In the oldest Roman list Clement 
was bishop from 88 to 97 A.D. Africanus places him in the twelfth year 
of Domitian. 

First Clement is a letter from the Roman to the Corinthian church. 
Goodspeed? makes the ingenious conjecture that this Epistle of Clement 
was in some degree called forth by Hebrews, whose destination was 
Rome. The Roman church occupied an important position, had a 
long Christian experience behind it, had been especially privileged, and 
it ought to teach (Heb. 5:12). Now it proposes to discharge its respon- 
sibilities. 

Unforeseen and successive misfortunes and reverses that had befallen 
the Christian community at-Rome had prevented an earlier communication, 
but an unholy insurrection against the regular church authorities at Corinth 
had so injured the good name of that most steadfast and ancient body that 
a brotherly letter of admonition was called for (chaps. 1, 47, etc.). Accord- 
ingly the purpose of the letter is wholly practical; it is the restoration and 
maintenance of harmony, in view of the serious breach of discipline among 
factious Corinthians. These differences in the Corinthian church were 
not doctrinal, but consisted of personal rivalries. The emphasis of the 
letter is upon the ethical bearings of the Christian calling, and doctrine is 
effectively employed with a view to these ends. 

In the course of his admonition, passing from ancient examples, the 
author comes to more recent champions, the noble examples of Peter and 
Paul, the greatest and most righteous pillars, the good apostles, who suffered 
martyrdom (chap. 5). Striking reference is made (chap. 47) to “‘the 
epistle of the blessed Paul the apostle” —our First Corinthians. More espe- 
cially does he draw upon the language and thought of the Epistle to the 

τ Pfleiderer is not impressed by these indications of a date about 95 A. D., and 


on considerations of a general character dates the letter in the period from too to 120 
A. Ὁ. (Das Urchristentum, I1, S. 585, 586). 


2 Epistle to the Hebrews, p. 23. 
83 


84 HISTORICAL AND LINGUISTIO STUDIES 


Hebrews. He knows and uses the evangelic tradition, but in a form that 
varies from our Synoptic Gospels. 

The letter is characterized by moderation, sobriety, ‘‘sweet reasonable- 
ness” (ἐπιείκεια), resembling in this respect First Peter, and contrasting 
with the intensity of the letters of Paul, the Apocalypse of John, and the 
letters of Ignatius. Twice the almost paradoxical expression, ‘‘earnest 
moderation” (ἐκτενὴς ἐπιείκεια), is used (58:2; 62:2). A word char- 
acteristic of the Christian ideal as he conceives it is παιδεύειν with its 
cognates, the idea being that of training, education, instruction. 

Taking up now the christological conceptions that emerge, we note: 

1. The mediatorial character of Christ—The words διὰ ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ 
occurring twice in the salutation are characteristic of the thought of the 
whole letter. In two passages God, Christ, and the Spirit are named in 
the order of the baptismal formula of Matt. 28:19 (46:6; 58:2). Through 
Jesus Christ ‘‘the eyes of. our heart were opened; through him our 
foolish and darkened mind springs up toward (his wonderful) light; 
through him the Lord would have us taste of undying knowledge” (36:2). 
Through his beloved Servant Jesus Christ, God has called us from heathen 
darkness to light, from ignorance to the full knowledge of the glory of his 
name, to be numbered among his elect in the whole world; through Christ 
he has instructed, sanctified, honored us (59:2, 3). 

2. The pre-existence of Christ is made use of in the spirit of II Cor. 
8:9 and Phil. 2:5 ff., as in chap. 16: ‘‘For Christ is with the lowly-minded, 
not with those who exalt themselves over the flock. The scepter of the 
majesty of God, the Lord Jesus Christ, came not in the pomp of arrogance 
or of pride, though he might have done so, but in lowliness of mind, as the 
Holy Spirit spoke concerning him” (16:1, 2). Then follows appropriately 
a long quotation from Isa., chap. 53. 

The pre-existent Christ, as in I Pet. 1:11, inspired the Old Testament 
writers: ‘‘Now all these things the faith which is in Christ confirms, for 
he himself through the Holy Spirit thus exhorts us” (22:1). Then is 
given an extended passage from Ps. 34:11-17, quoted also in another 
connection in I Pet. 3:10-12. Thus the Old Testament revelation and 
the Christian revelation have a common source. 

3. Rank and significant titles of Christ.—Following the Epistle to the 
Hebrews the letter sets forth that being the effulgence of his majesty, Christ 
is as much greater than angels as he has inherited a more excellent name. 
To him have been given nations for his inheritance and the ends of the earth 
for his possession. He sits at the right hand of God with his enemies for 
a footstool (chap. 36). 

84 


OUTLINE OF NEW TESTAMENT CHRISTOLOGY 85 


In 2:1 the statement is made that “his sufferings were before your 
eyes,” where, as the passage stands, the reference is to God himself—a 
form of expression common somewhat later, but probably the reference 
to God is not intended here. One is reminded of the loose reference in 
Heb. 1:8. Asin Heb. 3:1 Christ is called ‘‘the Apostle,” so here it is said 
that “Jesus Christ was sent forth from God,” as the apostles were from 
Christ (42:1, 2). Through him God is glorified (chap. 64). Asin Hebrews 
Christ is often spoken of as our High Priest (36:1; 61:3; chap. 64). There 
is also the title of Patron or Guardian (προστάτης), and he is the Helper 
of our weakness (36:1). 

4. His redemptive sufferings and death.—The letter dwells upon the 
subjective effect of the death of Christ upon the mind and conscience of 
the believer. The thought is akin to that of Heb. 13:15, where it is said 
in connection with the priesthood and suffering of Jesus: “Through him 
then let us offer up a sacrifice of praise to God continually, that is, the fruit 
of lips that make confession to his name.” But the stronger sacrificial 
idea more common in Hebrews is found here also: ‘Let us fix our attention 
on the blood of Christ and know how precious it is to God his Father, 
because, being shed for our salvation, it offered to the whole world the 
grace of repentance” (7:4). There is repeated mention of the blood of 
Christ (12:7; 21:6; 49:6), and frequent use of the conceptions of ransom 
and deliverance. The attitude toward the death of Christ is very near to 
that of First Peter. 

5. The Christ of faith.—All our hopes are in God. Like the Old Testa- 
ment saints, “‘we that have been called through his will in Jesus Christ are 
not justified through ourselves, nor through our own wisdom or understand- 
ing or piety or works which we wrought in holiness of heart, but through 
faith, whereby Almighty God justified all men who were from the beginning; 
to whom be the glory unto the ages of the ages. Amen” (34:4). Here 
as in Paul we have a recognition that divine grace is the ground of holiness 
and Christian morality, but faith as the primary condition of acceptance 
with God and the mainspring of the Christian life is not insisted on as by 
Paul. Important as was the grace of hospitality for members of the 
Christian brotherhood, who were strangers and sojourners in the world, 
Paul would not have co-ordinated it with faith, as Clement does twice 
(10:7; 12:1); nor would he have written ἔργοις δικαιούμενοι καὶ μὴ 
λόγοις (30:3). For Clement grace is not in opposition to law, and faith 
is not set over against works of law. Yet there is no degeneration of 
Paulinism; only the presuppositions, the Pharisaic training, the experience 
of the curse of the law and longing for redemption fromjit, the polemical 

85 


86 HISTORICAL AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES 


demands of Paulinism, are absent. The letter is neither Pauline nor 
Jewish Christian, and even Pfleiderer’s term ‘‘Deutero-paulinism ” is not 
altogether a happy one.? 

Faith consists of a religious frame of mind involving love and obedience 
to the will of God; it is the mind directed toward God, trust in his promises, 
obedience to his will, seeking out those things that are well-pleasing and 
acceptable to him (35:5). 

The phrase ἐν Χριστῷ occurs (1:2, etc.), but the Pauline doctrine of 
the mystical union of the believer with Christ, as in Rom., chap. 6, is not 
dwelt upon; our mystical and ethical participation in the resurrection of 
Christ does not appear. His resurrection is mentioned as a ground of 
assurance of the apostles who went forth with the tidings that the kingdom 
of God was about to come (42:3). 

6. Eschatology.—Up to this point in our treatment the christological 
standpoint has been almost exactly that of First Peter, but it is striking 
how little use Clement makes of eschatological conceptions in comparison 
with the large part they play in First Peter. The ἀποκάλυψις Ἰησοῦ of 
First Peter is not so constantly before this author’s mind. The future hope 
has been entirely transcendentalized (ζωὴ ἐν ἀθανασίᾳ, 35:2). A con- 
siderable section is given to the resurrection that is coming, of which the 
resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ was made the first-fruit when he was 
raised from the dead (24:1), and of which nature offers many analogies 
(chaps. 24, 25). 

7. Ethical bearings of the Christology.— Ethical precepts of Jesus are 
quoted (13:2; 46:8). The chief mark of Christian piety is love of the 
brethren (chaps. 48, 49, 50). Chap. 49 reminds us of I Cor., chap. 13. 


1 Das Urchristentum, II, S. 573-86. 


86 


IX. APOCALYPTICAL CHRISTOLOGY 


(THE APOCALYPSE OF JOHN) 


No Christian literature of our period is entirely free from apocalyptical 
influence. The eschatological interpretation of Jesus that dominated 
the primitive Jewish-Christian community persisted even after he was 
interpreted in a larger way. But it was natural and inevitable that minds 
of a certain type and in certain situations should make larger use of the 
apocalyptical conceptions of Judaism in attempting to relate Jesus to the 
problems which they were facing. Among the Christians the same con- 
ditions obtained that fostered the growth of apocalypticism in Judaism: 
oppressive social convulsions and the messianic hope. Although the 
Christians did not constitute a nation, they inherited the religious-national 
feelings of the Jews and regarded themselves the true Israel. What the 
Israelite thought would take place in the day of Yahweh, the Christian 
looked forward to at the second advent of Christ. Several representatives 
of this type of literature may be specified. 

1. Second Thessalonians.—-This epistle may have been Pauline, but 
there are considerations that weigh against this view (cf. 1:6, 8; 2:11, 15; 
3:6). It appears to lie out of the main line of development, having points 
of contact with the Pastoral Epistles, with the Apocalypse of John, and 
possibly with Second Peter. It has the appearance of an extract from 
First Thessalonians, the single original contribution being the apocalypti- 
cal section, 2:1-12, for the sake of which possibly the epistle was chiefly 
written. 

As a consequence of the belief that the day of the Lord’s coming was 
about to dawn, many had fanatically abandoned their employments. 
The epistle insists that Paul gave no teaching to justify such a course. 
The apostasy must first come and the man of lawlessness be revealed —the 
son of perdition, who opposes and exalts himself against everything called 
deity (θεόν) or an object of worship; he sits in the sanctuary of God, 
setting himself forth as deity (2:3, 4). The mystery of lawlessness is 
already at work, but is being held in check by a restraining power 
(το κατέχον, ὃ κατέχων, 2:6, 7). The Lord Jesus will slay with the breath 
of his mouth the lawless one, who deceives and works miracles (2:8-10). 
The Jewish belief in a final manifestation of the powers opposed to God 
and his Messiah under the lead of Antichrist here appears, but the specific 
reference, if there be one, is not so certain. Probably the Satanic power 
87] 87 


88 HISTORICAL AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES 


was identified with Jewish anti-Christian fanaticism and the restraining 
power with the Roman empire. According to the representation in Acts 
the Roman power protected the church from Jewish enemies. If this be 
correct, the situation is very different from that of the Apocalypse of John, 
where the writer’s attitude is wholly hostile to the Roman empire. 

2. Apocalypse of Peter —This work, of which only a fragment is extant, 
probably falls somewhere in the first half of the second century. It con- 
tains detailed descriptions of the redeemed in heaven and the lost in hell. 
What is of special interest to us is that its sources appear to be Greek and 
not Jewish: namely, the Orphic cult, which in turn drew from oriental 
sources. 

3. Papias.—Attention is called to the millennial passage in Papias, 
ascribed to the teaching of the Lord. 

4. Shepherd of Hermas.—This is somewhat distinct in character, and 
will receive special treatment later. 

5. The Apocalypse of John.—Dionysius, bishop of Alexandria, who 
died about A. D. 264, held on sound critical grounds that the Apocalypse 
of John was not written by the apostle and was not written by the author 
of tre Fourth Gospel and the Johannine epistles.2_ The parallels between 
it and the Fourth Gospel are superficial, such as the characterization of 
Christ as the Lamb of God (John 1:29, 36) and the occurrence of the 
term Logos in the Apocalypse (19:13). ‘The author does not claim to be an 
apostle but a Christian prophet, and he calls his book a prophecy (1:1-3, 
9; 22:7, 9, το, 18, 19). The Hebraistic style and the Jewish conceptions 
mark him as a Jew by birth. He probably wrote in Asia Minor, but used 
Palestinian materials. Irenaeus correctly fixed the date ‘‘toward the end 
of the reign of Domitian.”3 The persecutions of Nero and Domitian are 
distinguished by the author (6:9-11; 17:11). Apparent indications of 
some other date of composition are due to the use of earlier material (11: 
Ty 239835 8): 

Like the Jewish apocalypses, it is written to encourage believers to 
endure trial and death if necessary in view of the speedy coming of God for 
judgment and salvation, only in this apocalypse both are mediated by Christ. 
It is a violent protest against the fanatical hatred of the Jews and the cruel 
persecution of the Romans, over against which it affirms a confident faith 
that destruction must overtake these hostile elements and bring in the 
messianic deliverance. The troublous times are the signs that herald the 

t Irenaeus, Haer. 5:32. 

2\Wuseb., ἘΠ #7325. 

3 Haer. 5:30:3; Euseb., H. E. 5:8:5, 6. 

88 


OUTLINE OF NEW TESTAMENT CHRISTOLOGY 89 


coming of the messianic age. Domitian’s enmity to both Jews and Chris- 
tians was due to their unwillingness to pay him the honors he demanded. 
Refusal to worship the image of the emperor was punished with death 
(13:15; 20:4), though not many martyrdoms had yet taken place. By this 
means there was engendered a sense of irreconcilable opposition between 
the church and the empire. The war was to be fought to the bitter end, 
but it was a spiritual conflict. Behind the world-empire are spiritual 
powers of darkness. The older expectation of Christ’s speedy return to 
establish his kingdom was revived with intensity. Leading the armies 
of heaven against the hosts of Satan, he will finally triumph over every foe. 
The main sources are Jewish. It is not, however, like the Jewish 
apocalypses written in the name of ancient patriarch or prophet, and does 
not cover stretches of past history. Christians did not need to go back to 
find prophetic names, for there were ever in the church Christian prophets, 
who were held in high honor. The work does not then seem to be pseu- 
donymous, though we have such a book in the Apocalypse of Peter. It 
became common to re-edit Jewish apocalypses in a Christian sense. In 
some instances our author appears to have done little more than this. 
The picture of the Messiah is taken from Jewish sources; he is a Warrior- 
Messiah (19:11-16). The artificial interweaving of imagery from various 
sources produced all sorts of anomalies. A passage representing Jewish 
particularism stands side by side with the broadest universalism (7: 1-10). 
Also, we have a passage written before the destruction of the temple (11: 
1, 2). The seven letters seem to be an altogether original and unique 
feature. The conception of Christ’s setting up an earthly kingdom at the 
time of his return, of the reign of the saints with Christ a thousand years, 
of the loosing of Satan out of his prison, and finally of the last judgment, 
is decidedly Jewish (20:1-10). The presence of Jewish elements did not 
trouble the author of the book, for he believed that the Christians were 
the true Jews. But some of his combinations would appear to us grotesque, 
were we not already familiar with them: the Lamb’s book of life (13:8; 
21:27), the marriage of the Lamb (19:7), the bride, the wife of the Lamb 
(21:9), the lamp is the Lamb (21:23), the throne of the Lamb (22:3). 
The older apocalyptists did not exhaust the material of which use could 
be made. Babylonia was still rich in mythological lore. Doubtless from 
Jewish sources our author drew new material whose origin was Babylonia. 
Events originally related of the beginnings of things are told again of the 


τ The enforcement of emperor-worship in Asia Minor was introduced for the sake 
of unifying and Romanizing the diverse elements of the empire. It was offensive 
only to monotheistic faiths. 

89 


90 HISTORICAL AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES 


last days. Creation arose out of chaos through the conquest of the gods 
of the underworld by the gods of heaven, and again we see Christ as the 
heaven-god leading the angelic host against hostile powers. The old 
serpent or dragon of the ancient chaos becomes Satan and the Roman 
power (chaps. 12, 13). In chap. 5 there seems to be the introduction and 
enthroning of a new deity into the pantheon, his superiority being demon- 
strated by his ability to open the magical book. 

Since the book consists chiefly of Jewish apocalyptic and Babylonian 
myth, what is the Christian element? One fails to find in the picture of 
God the fatherly traits taught. by Jesus, and yet by the identification of 
Jesus with this Jewish Messiah in a Jewish kingdom, God is brought 
nearer to men, and as we shall see in a moment, the Jewish limitations 
are really swept away. He is frequently designated by the personal name 
Jesus (1:9; 12:17; 22:16); sometimes is called the Christ (11:15). He 
is of the tribe of Judah and the family of David (5:5; 22:16). The 
number of his apostles, his crucifixion in Jerusalem, his resurrection, his 
exaltation, are mentioned (1:5, τ; 2:8; 2:2: 11:83, τὴν 2m 
Most characteristic is the designation ‘“‘Lamb of God.” It is probably 
connected with Isa. 53:7 and the Passover, and is a symbol of obedient 
and self-denying love, though, as we have seen, it has come to be applied 
without any reference to its original signification. As in First Peter, 
Hebrews, and First John, the death of Christ is presented as a means of 
purification from sin: he loosed (Avw not Aovw) us from our sins by his 
blood (1:5), and the saints have washed their robes and made them white 
in the blood of the Lamb (7:14; 22:14). The figure of purchase is used 
(ἀγοράζω, 5:9; 14:3, 4). He is the Lion that is of the tribe of Judah, 
the Root of David, but the seer saw a Lamb standing as slain (5:5, 6). 
The inevitable Daniel-passage (7:13) appears, but in 14:14 the one like 
unto a son of man does not appear to be Christ at all but an angel who 
takes directions from another angel. : 

The Christology is not that of Jewish Christianity, although a mass of 
non-Christian material has been incorporated without being thoroughly 
assimilated. The author believed in the salvation of uncircumcised 
gentiles and did not think of the Jewish ceremonial law as binding on any 
Christian (5:9, 10; 7:9). There is here no pre-Pauline Christology, 
rather a high conception of Christ, a broad universality, and freedom from 
Jewish particularism. As with Paul, it is only the redeeming death of 
the earthly Jesus that is dwelt upon, and chap. 5 reminds us of Phil. 2: 5-11: 
through his redemptive death Jesus gained a place of glory and power above 
the highest angels (5:9). The dignity, glory, and authority of Christ and 

90 


OUTLINE OF NEW TESTAMENT CHRISTOLOGY 91 


the greatness of his redeeming work are set forth in exalted terms and 
the strongest imagery is employed (1:5). He is a priest (1:13), is Lord 
of the church (1:12~-16), is pre-existent and eternal, and determines who 
shall enter and who be released from the realms of the dead (1:8, 17, 18; 
21:6; 22:13), is King of kings and Lord of lords (17:14; 19:16), is the 
bright, the morning-star that will rise upon the world to usher in the con- 
summation (22:16). When he is described as 9 ἀρχὴ τῆς κτίσεως τοῦ θεοῦ 
(3: 14), we are reminded of Col. 1:15, 18: πρωτότοκος πάσης κτίσεως, . . 
ds ἐστιν ἡ] ἀρχή. He is the Logos of God (19:13), though this passage 
looks like an interpolation in view of the fact that in the preceding 
verse it was stated as a mark of his transcendence that no one knows 
his name. His name is constantly associated with that of God (7:10; 
20:6; 21:22; 22:1, 3). Given titles that belong to God, and worshiped 
by men and angels, Christ reigns not only during the earthly millennium, 
but sits with God in the final consummation. 


91 


X. CHRISTOLOGY IN’ THE PASTORAL EPISTEES 


The pastoral epistles arose in the first or second decade of the second 
Christian century, possibly somewhat later. The doctrinal situation is 
similar to that found in the letters of Polycarp and Ignatius. It is likely, 
but not quite certain, that these epistles were known to Polycarp and Igna- 
tius.. They were not improbably based on genuine letters or notes of 
Paul to Timothy and Titus. There are Pauline passages and personal 
notices that bear marks of genuineness, especially in Second Timothy and 
Titus. Yet the attempt to distinguish the authentic passages is hazardous, 
and hypothetical reconstructions are not here attempted. 

One who regarded himself a loyal follower of Paul proposed to safe- 
guard the church against error in life and doctrine, and to this end he 
urged good and pious living and warned against novelties and vagaries of 
faith. Like Ignatius, he saw in church organization a defense against 
evil tendencies. The false teachings attacked were those of the incipient 
Gnosticism of the early second century. The notable reference in I Tim. 
6:20 to “‘the antitheses of gnosis falsely so called” (ἀντιθέσεις τῆς ψευδω- 
νύμου γνώσεως), is, possibly a later addition and may refer to Marcion’s 
ἀντιθέσεις, a voluminous work in which he attempted to show the con- 
tradiction between the Old Testament and the gospel. If it be noted that 
the writer failed to distinguish between tendencies of an opposite character, 
the false teachers being now antinomian and now ascetic (I Tim. 4:3-5), 
now legalistic (Tit. 1:10, 14) and now spiritualistic (II Tim. 2:18), we 
may not forget that these various elements are to be found also in Gnosti- 
cism. The dualism combated in I Tim. 4:3 and Tit. 1:5 lay at the founda- 
tion of Gnosticism. When the life of flesh and sense is regarded as wholly 
evil, two courses are possible: the flesh may be either repressed or indulged 
without restraint, and history furnishes abundant examples of both courses. 
For those who despised the flesh a literal resurrection was out of the ques- 
tion; the resurrection had already come in a spiritual rising from the dead 
—an error possibly due also to a misunderstanding of Paul’s doctrine of 
the resurrection of believers at baptism to the new life in the Spirit. But 
it is evident that our author understood by the resurrection only that of 
the fleshly body. Reference is frequent to intermediate divine beings: 
the ‘‘endless genealogies” (I Tim. 1:4; Tit. 3:9) are hierarchies of aeons 
and archons, Christ being the center of these angelic powers. If the 


t Pfleiderer makes too little of the evidence. 


92] 92 


OUTLINE OF NEW TESTAMENT CHRISTOLOGY 93 


author is content with indiscriminate denunciations in place of a demon- 
stration of the fallacy of the heretical positions, it is because he is convinced 
that the deposit of the faith—the true gnosis—has been handed down by 
the apostles against all sorts of error. We are reminded of Polycarp. 
The gnostic position is further met by placing the emphasis on obedience 
and ethical activities instead of on knowledge and speculation. Chris- 
tianity is an ethical religion and not an esoteric philosophy.? 

There are some striking Pauline ideas and passages, but for the most 
part characteristic Pauline truths are absent. Instead of the doctrines 
of death to the flesh and life in the spirit, of union with Christ so that 
Christ lives in the believer, our author emphasizes piety and good works. 
Faith appears as the means of salvation in I Tim. 1:16 and II Tim. 3:15; 
elsewhere πίστις is mentioned among other virtues, is used of correct 
belief, or stands for an objective system of accepted truth. Answering 
to Paul’s idea of faith is piety (εὐσέβεια, θεοσέβεια) manifesting itself in 
good works. 

Savior (σωτήρ), used elsewhere of Christ, is here (in First Timothy 
exclusively) applied to God, as‘in Luke 1:47 and Jude, vs. 25. The unity 
of God is emphasized, it may be in opposition to the Gnostic distinction 
between the God of creation, of the Old Testament, of the flesh, on the 
one hand, and the good God of love and redemption, revealed in Christ, 
on the other. 

In I Tim. 3:16 we find a liturgical confession set over against gnostic 
docetism—‘‘the mystery of the religion” (τῆς εὐσεβείας): 

He was revealed in flesh, 

He was attested by the Spirit, 

He was beheld by angels, 

He was proclaimed among nations, 

He was believed on in the world, 

He was taken up in glory. 
The union of the human and spiritual sides of Christ, suggested also in 
I Pet. 3:18, is developed with greater fulness in the letter of Ignatius to 
the Ephesians (7:2): ‘‘There is one physician, both sarkical and spiritual, 
made and not made, God coming in flesh, true life in death, both of Mary 
and of God, first passible and then impassible—Jesus Christ our Lord”— 
a passage quoted by Athanasius. As in Ignatius and the Johannine theol- 
ogy, the higher nature and origin of Christ is fundamental: he came into 
the world (I Tim. 1:15). Over against the many divine principles and 
intermediate beings of gnostic mythology we read: ‘‘For there is one God, 

τ Scott, Apologetic of the New Testament, p. 181. 
93: 


94 HISTORICAL AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES 


also one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave 
himself a ransom for all, the testimony in its own times” (I Tim. 2:5, 6), 
where special emphasis is upon his true manhood. In the notable passage, 
Tit. 2:13—in the reference to the blessed hope and appearing of the glory of 
the great God and our Savior Christ Jesus—by the “‘great God” is probably 
meant Christ himself. He made an end of death and brought life and 
immortality to light through the good news (II Tim. 1:10). The Pauline 
doctrine of the significance of the death of Christ finds echoes, as in I Tim. 
2:6 (ἀντίλυτρον); but as in First Peter it is the ethical side that is dwelt 
upon (Tit. 2:14). Our God and Savior Christ Jesus has appeared pri- 
marily to redeem us, not from the curse of the law, as in Paul, but from 
lawlessness, from an immoral life. Against gnostic exclusiveness the 
universality of salvation through Christ is set forth (Tit. 2:11; I Tim. 2:4; 


50): 


94 


XI. THE JOHANNINE CHRISTOLOGY 


The author of the Fourth Gospel was after Paul the most profound 
religious genius of our period, and in originality and spiritual insight he 
does not suffer even in comparison with the great apostle to the gentiles. 
And yet we know nothing further of him. Since the latter part of the 
second century he has been identified with the apostle John. Internal 
evidence does not tend to confirm this tradition. The book does not appear 
to have been written by one who had been a personal disciple of the Lord 
throughout his public career. To cite a single illustration, the son of 
Zebedee was a Galilean, but for this writer Galilee has little interest, while 
in Jerusalem—in his account the main scene of the Lord’s ministry—he is at 
home. From external evidence a strong case can be made for apostolic 
authorship, but John the apostle has evidently been confused with John 
the Elder—a great personality who arises vaguely out of the darkness of the 
times. Irenaeus says that asa boy he used to hear the blessed Polycarp de- 
scribe his intercourse with John, who published the gospel while dwelling in 
Ephesus.t Now Papias distinguishes between the apostle John and the elder 
John, but Irenaeus seems to have misunderstood him. In this instance 
Eusebius detected the confusion of Irenaeus.?, The age was one liable to 
such mistakes. The fact that Irenaeus ascribes not only the gospel but also 
the apocalypse to the apostle John suggests caution in accepting his testi- 
mony. It is a question whether the apostle John ever worked in Asia 
Minor.s Writing to the Ephesian church Ignatius addresses them as those 
who have been initiated into the sacred mysteries with Paul (Παύλου 
συμμύσται, 12:2), but mentions no such relationship with John, one of the 
Twelve, as would have been likely had he had a long Ephesian residence. 

There is little reason to doubt the ancient tradition that the Johannine 
writings rose on Asian ground. The Christian communities of Asia 
Minor played a leading réle in the history of the primitive church, and the 
Fourth Gospel is their most valuable gift to the world. The time was prob- 
ably that of Trajan. We have to allow for the use of the Synoptic Gospels, 
and the general situation is such as to make extremely improbable any 
time before the second century. In the letter of Polycarp (7:1) there 
appears to be a reminiscence of the Johannine epistles (I John 4:2, 3; 

1 faer. 3:11; Euseb., H. E. 5:20, 24. 

SEBS Ds ΕἸ. Ε- 3:30. 

3.566 Bousset in the Meyer Kommentar, “Die Offenbarung des Johannis,” and 
Encyclopedia Biblica, article “Apocalypse.” 

95] 95 


90 HISTORICAL AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES 


II John, vs. 7), but this should not be pressed. The year A. D. 110 may be 
given as an approximate date for the Fourth Gospel. The Johannine 
epistles may have either preceded or followed. But we must leave open 
the possibility of a still later date for the Fourth Gospel. Identity of 
authorship cannot be established for the gospel and the epistles. They 
belong to the same school and are closely related in language and thought. 
The resemblances make all the more striking the strong divergences, in 
view of which it is best to treat them apart. The Apocalypse of John 
has already been treated, as belonging to an earlier period and to a different 
class of literature. 

These writings then proceeded from an Asian school which seems to 
have originated with John the elder. It is generally assumed that the 
author of the Fourth Gospel was a Jew by birth, on account of the Hebraic 
cast of his language and his knowledge of contemporary Palestinian Juda- 
ism. But the fact that the work furnishes the most extreme case of dejuda- 
izing in the New Testament suggests that the author may not have been 
a Jew. Personal relationship to Jesus and direct witness to the events 
recorded appear to be claimed in gospel and epistle (John 1:14; I John 
1:1—3), but the consciousness of an immediate relation with the spiritual 
Christ and such passages as I John 3:6 and III John, vs. 11, suggest a 
different interpretation. 

THE FOURTH GOSPEL 

The Fourth Gospel has no parallel in the history of primitive Chris- 
tianity. In the author are combined receptivity and rare creative power. 
Gentile-Christian thought takes the form of gospel literature. The 
interest is not historical but theological. Indeed, we do not look for purely 
historical interest among the writers of the ancient East. History was 
employed as a means of conveying the writer’s own ideas. Men composed 
poetry with its legends and myths before they wrote history. ‘The Synoptic 
Gospels are primarily pure history; they were written for the purpose of evan- 
gelization and indoctrination, and not mere chronicling; the adoption of 
the gospel-form was the authors’ way of preaching Jesus Christ, and the 
popularity and influence of the gospels proved a justification of their 
effort. But in spite of the theological aims and idealizing tendencies of 
the synoptists, they were interested in the facts. In his preface Luke pro- 
poses to give an orderly narrative of the facts of the life of Jesus. John is 
after the meaning of the facts. Now Matthew’s purpose is certainly similar, 
but he reproduces his sources with more fidelity. John has transformed 
everything. He gives us not a photograph but a painting, an interpreta- 
tion, such as Plato gives of Socrates. Facts are related because of their 

96 


OUTLINE OF NEW TESTAMENT CHRISTOLOGY 97 


revealing power. For this purpose the traditions of Jesus’ life current 
in the church are drawn upon. It seems that the most important sources 
were our Synoptic Gospels, but to some extent they are supplemented—at 
some points possibly even corrected. The impressive story of the inter- 
polated passage, 7:53—8:11, proves that there were elements in the 
evangelic tradition that the synoptists had not incorporated in their books. 

What now was the writer’s controlling purpose? It is perhaps an 
editor who has added 20:30, 31, where the purpose is said to be that the 
readers might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and believ- 
ing have life in his name; but in any case it well sets forth the character 
of the gospel. The author presents in the form of a record of the works 
and words of Jesus his own idea of the significance of his person. The 
historical life has abiding meaning. All facts are read in the light of his 
conception of Christ’s person. The messianic title and office are absorbed 
and lost in his larger and higher view of the eternal Son of God. The 
great figure around which all else revolves, he treads the earth but is not 
of it. Historical development, adaptation answering to changing environ- 
ment, are mostly wanting. From the beginning Jesus knows that he is 
to die at the hands of the Jews, is aware of the character of Judas, foresees 
the future, and is indeed omniscient (1:48; 2:24, 25; 4:16-19; 6:64; 
13:18; 16:30; 18:4; 19:28). Under these circumstances there is no 
need to mention the Baptism, the Temptation, the scene in Gethsemane, 
or prayer except for the sake of his hearers (11:42; 12:30). The dis- 
courses are about the nature of the Christ, what lies back of his manifesta- 
tion in humanity, his relation to God, his pre-existence, his risen life and 
work as Spirit; and in it all Jesus speaks beyond those immediately 
addressed to the readers of the book. From beginning to end, and what- 
ever the situation, the content of the teaching is largely the same. Taken 
up as the book is with discourses, there is not a parable of the kind familiar 
to us in the Synoptic Gospels; instead there are allegories, as of the good 
shepherd and the true vine. 

There were specific historical circumstances that called forth a work 
of just this character, and we may discover reasons even for his remarkable 
contrasts and contradictions. There is for instance the controversy with 
“the Jews.” It does not concern messiahship or theocratic hopes or the 
law in the older sense, but the divine claims of Jesus and the problem of 
reconciling them with monotheism (5:18; 10:36).! The break with 
the Jews had become irreparable; synagogue and church stand apart, 

« The difficulties that present themselves to Jewish opponents are like those of the 
Talmud and those Celsus derived from the Jews. 
97 


98 HISTORICAL AND LINGUISTIO STUDIES 


but there is recognition of the historical relation of Christianity to Judaism 
(4:22; 5:46; 12:41). We hear echoes of a controversy with the sect 
that still held to John the Baptist, with which Paul also is represented to 
have come into contact at Ephesus (Acts 18:25; 19:3, 4; see also the 
Clementine Recognitions 1:54, 60). Within the church there is the 
Eucharistic discussion (6:32-59). In a word there was a new situation 
to be faced, there were new ideas and interests of which to take account, 
old forms and arguments were outgrown, a reinterpretation of Christianity 
was demanded; and within the church there was one man whose nature and 
outlook were sufficiently large and catholic, whose hold upon the essential 
element in Christianity and whose understanding of the abiding meaning 
of the historical life of Jesus were so true, that his religious genius proved 
adequate for the crisis. Three of the determining influences in the con- 
struction of his Christology will receive special consideration. 

τ. Paulinism.—A half-century had elapsed since the death of Paul. 
But Paul had made a deep impression on Asia Minor, his influence being 
manifest in Ignatius and in gnostic circles, all of which adopted certain 
of his conceptions. Perhaps the Epistle to the Ephesians took its name 
from the place of its origin; it carries forward the development on strictly 
Pauline lines. One more powerful witness to his influence is furnished 
by the Johannine literature. But we must not suppose for a moment 
that John was a man who would take over anything directly and literally 
from Paul. He made no such use even of the Synoptic Gospels. Every 
Pauline doctrine that he holds has been transformed and correlated with 
his own religious experience. 

Both Paul and John proceeded in their christological thinking from 
their experience of the risen, spiritual Christ, whom they knew not after 
the flesh. Paul claimed that his vision and knowledge of the risen Lord 
was as real and valid as that of those who had seen and known him in 
the flesh. John is possessed of the same conviction regarding himself. 
Indeed it is his consciousness of communion with the living, eternal Savior, 
who still reveals himself to those who believe in him, that justifies his 
free use of his materials, in the spirit of I Cor. 2:9, το (John 14:26; 15:26; 
16:12-15). But there is a difference: John values as Paul did not the 
life lived in the flesh. He did not think of it as a kenosis or humiliation, 
though it was a condescension. He sees the glory of the exalted Christ 
resting upon the earthly life, as indeed the disciples were disposed to do 
from the beginning. Paul and John make somewhat the same use of pre- 
existence in connection with Christ’s redemptive work: Christ is able to 
reveal the Father and to save because he came down from heaven, but 

98 


OUTLINE OF NEW TESTAMENT CHRISTOLOGY 99 


for John he did not as for Paul divest himself of his glory and divine pre- 
rogatives.? 

The universalism of the gospel of Christ is common to Paul and John. 
Our author was a world-Christian to whom Jewish law and prerogative 
meant nothing and to whom the requiring of circumcision and the observ- 
ance of Jewish law of gentile converts would have been repugnant. In 
his hostility to the Jews he goes far beyond Paul, holding out no such hope 
of the ultimate salvation of Israel. Christ brings freedom from sin (8:34- 
36), but not freedom from all law; John does not scruple to represent the 
Christian life as the keeping of Christ’s commandments. Yet in general 
he reproduces Paul’s idea of spiritual freedom, employing even the figures 
of servant and son (8:33-39). And where could be found a more excellent 
statement of Paul’s doctrine of faith and works than in 6:29: ‘This is 
the work of God, that you believe on him whom God has sent”? Never- 
theless the view of faith is not exactly the same. In John faith is an 
attitude toward Christ as the supreme manifestation of God, fixing primarily 
not upon Christ in his redemptive work for the sinner but upon him in 
his relation to God. Instead of trust it tends to become belief, just as in 
First John the recognition of the divine Sonship of Jesus and the reality 
of his incarnation is made the test of the Christian’s standing before God. 

A fundamental difference between Paul and John in their conception 
of Christ in his relation to men is that Paul thinks of him primarily as 
the Redeemer from sin and the flesh, and John as the Revealer of the 
Father and of truth. The redemption wrought by Christ is for Paul 
release from the flesh and means entrance upon a new and holy life in the 
Spirit. In John likewise there is the contrast between flesh and spirit, 
but the new birth is into a world of light and redemption, a transfer from 
darkness to light. Christ came to take away sin, but his central work was 
the revelation of the Father. Sin is not so much moral evil as limitation, 
incapacity for the higher life, and unbelief in Christ (15:22; 16:9). 

While some of Paul’s controlling ideas were taken up by the church, 
others just as essential to his thought were not appropriated. His con- 
ception of the believer’s oneness with Christ was too much out of line with 
the ordinary experience of the Christian man to mean much to the church, 
even when Paul’s phraseology was retained. But in one form or another 
the abiding presence of the spiritual Christ continued a matter of con- 
scious experience, and great mystic souls like John and Ignatius could 
not dispense with bold, vital expressions of their sense of union with the 
Lord. The union as conceived by Paul was not only ethical but somehow 

τ Therefore there is no occasion to introduce the Transfiguration. 


99 


100 HISTORICAL AND LINGUISTIO STUDIES 


ontological; so John thought of the life communicated through personal 
union with Christ as a kind of transmitted essence, though he often describes 
it in ethical terms. In this connection belongs the Eucharistic discussion 
of chap. 6. So also Ignatius writes to the Ephesians that they break one 
bread, which is medicine of immortality, an antidote against dying, causing 
them to live forever in Jesus Christ (20:2). Although Paul was still 
looking for the coming of Christ, practically he could realize his presence 
in the Spirit, and it was a real presence. John was able to make it still 
more real (if possible) by his spiritual understanding of the parousia; 
for him Christ had already come and was realized as an invisible and 
abiding presence. The coming of the Paraclete was that of Christ himself 
(14:16, 18). 

We recall that Paul fixes upon the death of Christ as the crowning act 
of divine love, in which Christ’s character, revealing the character of God, 
is summed up. John too sees in his death an expression of love (15:13), 
but with him it is chiefly the life that is revelatory. Overwhelmed with 
consciousness of sin and the law, Paul found peace in the grace of God 
revealed through the cross, which was an expression of the mind of Christ 
and God. For him it was enough to know Christ crucified; the death 
furnished the key to the purpose and meaning of the life. In John the 
life as a whole occupies the place assigned by Paul to the death. There 
seems to be logically no need for the doctrine of the expiatory death in the 
Johannine Christology, but at this point John makes no formal break with 
the current church doctrine. He appears to dissociate the Christian 
sacrament from the Jewish Passover by placing the Supper on the 13th 
of Nisan instead of the 14th, and making it the prototype of the Agape, 
so that the crucifixion coincides with the killing of the Paschal lamb 
(I Cor. 5:7). An explicit connection of the death with sin occurs in 1:29 
—by no means a characteristic manner of speaking with him and most 
likely a reminiscence of the church doctrine. The death is an act deliber- 
ately accomplished and necessary to his entrance into glory and return to 
his disciples. 

Paul’s idea of the Son of God was not only the religious and the apocalyp- 
tic but the gentile and literal, the title expressing the essential relation 
of Christ to God; Christ was God’s own Son (Rom. 8:32), pre-existing 
in the form of God (Phil. 2:6). John pushes this conception of the nature 
of the Son and his relation to God a step farther, employing the name 
‘“‘Son of God” in the full sense it would convey to the Greek mind—one 
who was of the same nature with the Father and was always Son. He 
does not go as far as Ignatius and without scruple call Christ God; the 

100 


OUTLINE OF NEW TESTAMENT CHRISTOLOGY 101 


Logos is θεός, not 6 Θεός (1:1). The exclamation of Thomas is not to be 
taken as our author’s characteristic way of speaking (20:28), though it is 
of great significance for his thought. 

2. Alexandrianism.—Alexandrian ideas early gained a foothold in 
Asia Minor. In Acts 18:24 we are told that a certain Jew named Apollos, 
an Alexandrian by race, a learned man, mighty in the Scriptures, came to 
Ephesus. The epistles to the Colossians, the Ephesians, and the Hebrews, 
all of which probably rose in Asia Minor, bear witness to the extent to 
which Alexandrian thought and method had already entered the Christian 
movement when the Fourth Gospel was written. In his masterly and 
penetrating work on the Fourth Gospel, to which this treatment is under 
heavy obligations, Scott expresses more than once his conviction that John 
was directly acquainted with the works of Philo and was conscious of his 
indebtedness to them. This does not seem probable. We have seen that 
Philonic ideas had already gained currency and entered Christian thought. 
The case is altogether different in Hebrews, where the author shows himself ' 
to be a thoroughgoing literary Hellenist. John’s undertaking was, like 
Philo’s, that of naturalizing in the Hellenic world religious ideas originating 
among the Jews of Palestine; but he had no such philosophical interest and 
equipment as the Alexandrian thinker. What Philo and his school found 
in the Logos, he found in Christ. As Philo used allegory to read Greek 
philosophy in the Old Testament, so by means of allegory John was enabled 
to see through facts to their true import. Allegory had been employed 
in the rabbinical schools of Palestine, but the allegorical character of the 
Fourth Gospel is due to Alexandrian influence. Outward facts are sym- 
bolical. Persons are types. The use of the temple, the brazen serpent, 
the manna, and the passover-lamb (2:21; 3:14; 6:31, 32; 19:36) is 
after the manner of Hebrews. 

Plato had elaborated the theory of ideas which separated the material 
world from the world of higher reality—a conception of which Hebrews 
made much. The Stoics brought the worlds into correlation by the 
hypothesis of Heraclitus that a Adyos, a principle of reason, pervades the 
universe. The Logos is both reason and activity, inward and declared (λόγος 
ἐνδιάθετος καὶ προφορικός). Now Jewish thinkers, confronted by the 
same dualism in view of the growing impression of God’s transcendence, 
bridged the gulf by hypostatizing Wisdom and the Word (Memra), by the 
mediation of angels that filled the space between earth and heaven, and 
by increased reliance on theirlaw. In the spirit of Plato, Philo looked upon 
visible things as the types and shadows of reality, and with the Stoics saw 

t The Fourth Gospel, pp. 55, 154- 

101 


102 HISTORICAL AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES 


in the Logos reason and uttered speech, divine energy and self-revelation. 
True to his Hebrew monotheism, he subordinated the Logos to the supreme, 
self-existing God. In his thought man is by virtue of his intelligence akin 
to the divine Logos, and men who know one Creator and Father of all 
things are sons of God.t_ The Father of the universe brought the Logos into 
being as his eldest son, his firstborn, who imitates the ways of his Father.? 
The Logos distributes to all the true manna, the heavenly food and nourish- 
ment of the soul.3 John’s prologue contains distinctive Philonic con- 
ceptions: the eternity of the Logos, the relation to God (πρὸς τὸν Θεόν), 
his creative activity, and his function in the illumination of men (1:1-4). 
After the prologue the term is used only in the sense of spoken discourse. 
John’s interest is not in the abstract Logos but in the personal Logos 
made flesh, not in his cosmic but in his saving significance. Philo’s . 
cosmology falls into the background. It is possible but not likely that 
along with a number of alterations in the text of the Johannine literature 
the prologue also was affixed. The Logos-doctrine is in a way assumed 
throughout. 

We have then a truth of religious experience stated in terms of Alex- 
andrian speculation. The fact was that Jesus had revealed God. There- 
fore he is identified with the divine reason and essence on the one hand, 
and on the other with God’s principle of activity and revelation, which 
manifests itself in creation and the soul of man. Thus Jesus was different 
in nature from the men around him. A mysterious halo is about his 
person. In all his words and deeds a glory shines out. He manifests 
his glory by miracles, which are signs (σημεῖα, 2:12; 9:3; 12:4)—exhibi- 
tions primarily not of compassion but of power, designed to inspire belief 
in his claims (4:48; 9:3; 11:40). Where there is dependence on the 
synoptists, the marvelous is chosen and heightened. About his presence 
there is an overawing majesty (7:46; 18:6). It is one who came forth 
from God and returns to God that washes the disciples’ feet (13:3). By 
nature they were his servants, but in his divine love and condescension he 
calls them friends (16:15). He is self-determining, independent of out- 
ward circumstances and compulsion, master of his own fate (7:30; 8:20; 
10:18). His words are divine (6:63, 68; 15:3). With the Logos-hypoth- 
esis there is no need of adducing the tradition of the virgin-birth (cf. 1:45; 
6:12. 7:27): 

3. Gnosticism.—The presence of incipient Gnostics in Asia Minor 
in the first century is witnessed by the epistles to the Colossians and the 

t De Mundi Opif. 51; Conf. Ling. 28. 

2 Conf. Ling. 14. 3 Quid Rer. Div. 39; De Profug. 25. 

102 


OUTLINE OF NEW TESTAMENT CHRISTOLOGY 108 


Ephesians. Their large influence there early in the second century is 
testified to by the zeal of Ignatius. The Fourth Gospel makes no express 
mention of Gnosticism, but there is reason to believe that it was present 
to the mind of the author. Emphasis on certain physical details which 
prove the reality of Christ’s life and especially of his death; the avoidance - 
of the substantives γνῶσις and πίστις, though the ideas and the verbal 
forms ever recur, σοφία also being replaced by ἀλήθεια; the comparative 
absence of angels; the honor paid the Old Testament as foreshadowing 
the revelation in Jesus; the exclusion from a part in creation of the mediat- 
ing aeons of gnostic mythology (1:3); special mention that Jesus “went 
out bearing the cross for himself” (19:17), the gnostic legend being that 
Simon of Cyrene was crucified in place of Jesus—these facts taken all 
together point toward a conscious opposition to Gnosticism on the part 
of the writer. Loyal to the church’s evangelic tradition, he insists that 
Christianity be not detached from its original and vital connection with the 
person of the historical Jesus. He is satisfied with no Logos of bare specu- 
lation, but with one known in personal human form. 

But like every wise apologete for the faith, John is sympathetic and 
receptive toward the deeper thought-currents of the time, and careful to 
appropriate and conserve what is true and helpful. On this account his 
work became a favorite gospel of gnostic schools. At the close of the 
second century it was even said that Cerinthus was its author. The docetic 
Gospel of Peter follows it in preference to the Synoptics. It cannot be 
denied that in tendency it is at times almost docetic. The doctrine of a 
present resurrection is close to gnostic thought (5:24). The antitheses 
of the lower and the higher worlds, darkness and light, earthly men and 
spiritual men, are fundamental. The religious life is one of knowing, 
though knowledge always includes ethical elements. It is evident that 
the distinction between orthodox and gnostic had not become marked. 
Later Christians often combated only special fantastic forms of Gnosticism, 
not understanding its real spirit. But John and the Gnostics drew in part 
from a common source—the general religious culture of the age. The 
saving work of Christ must be brought into relation with the needs of the 
Greek world; hence he is conceived as one who brings illumination and 
eternal life. To know God is all-important, but this is to know his char- 
acter and will. Christ reveals the Father by the manifestation of himself. 
He was more than a messenger come to bear witness of the light; he was 
the light (1:7-9, 18). The acceptation of this revelation brings eternal 
life and its rejection eternal death. Christianity is new knowledge. The 
Fourth Gospel thus fostered the tendency in the church toward an intel- 

103 


104 HISTORICAL AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES 


lectual apprehension of Christianity. Faith, however, is still an act of the 
soul—not yet ‘‘the faith,” but approaching that. 

Eschatology.—Perhaps there is no feature of the Johannine reinter- 
pretation of Christ more remarkable than the transformation of the current 
eschatology. Most vital to John was his consciousness of the presence 
of the living Christ. For this he reads history symbolically and finds in it 
prophetic allusions. Expectation of the parousia, a cardinal article of 
faith in the primitive church, had through all these years undergone a 
severe strain. Some clung to the hope almost frantically, staking every- 
thing, as it were, upon it;' but all in some degree maintained the hope. 
John holds, on the other hand, that it has already taken place. Christ 
comes to the believer inwardly and spiritually (14:21-23). He said he 
would come in a little while, and he fulfilled his promise immediately after 
the ascension to the Father. And so the discourses at the Supper take 
the place of the apocalyptic discourses of the Synoptics, and the coming 
of Christ in the Spirit is substituted for the parousia. ‘This seems very 
simple, but there is confessedly some confusion. The future advent of 
21:22 (“till I come”) belongs to the appendix. The future coming of 
5:25, 28, 29 seems to be a contradiction of the context, and the last two 
verses look like an interpolation. The meaning of 14:3 seems to be a 
coming at death to take the believer to a heavenly abode. Possibly there is 
reference to the appearances after the resurrection in 16:16, 22. But the pre- 
vailing reference to his coming in the Spirit is unmistakable (14:18, 23, 28). 

The resurrection of Jesus effected the confirmation of the disciples’ 
faith in him (20:8, 28), and the possibility of his return to the Father to 
send the Spirit. His resurrection secured to believers a universal, inward, 
permanent divine presence. There was no clear place for the ascension, 
such as is described in Acts, but as belonging to the tradition it is referred 
to in) 20227. 

Paul taught that the Christian man has already experienced a spiritual 
resurrection. This is with John a cardinal conviction; Christ imparts 
spiritual life, and the believer in him has already passed out of death into 
life (5:21, 24). Martha’s idea of the resurrection was eschatological and 
physical; Jesus transfers the emphasis to the present (11:24-26). But 
the traditional belief in a final resurrection which is to include those that 
have done evil is not excluded (5:28, 29; 6:39, 40, 44, 54). 

In the traditional messianism Christ was to be judge (II Cor. 5:10). 
John carries the messianic judgment back into the earthly life of Jesus 

τ Apoc. of John; Apoc. of Peter; Papias (Iren., Haer. 5:33); II Peter, ‘“‘Where 
is the promise of his parousia ἢ (3:4). 


104 


OUTLINE OF NEW TESTAMENT CHRISTOLOGY 105 


(5:22, 27, 30; 8:16; 9:39; 12:31). Again it is said that he does not 
judge; he came to save (3:17; 5:45; 8:15; 12:47). His judgment is 
not formal; he has come into the world as the light, the revelation of God, 
and light brings all things to the test (3:18-21). Men choose for or against 
him. The word he speaks judges (12:47, 48). As a matter of course 
the judgment “‘in the last day” also appears (5:28, 29; 12:48). 

Summing up, we may view the Christology of the Fourth Gospel in 
Christ’s relation to God, to the Holy Spirit, and to men. 

The title “‘the Christ” has for the most part lost its original significance 
in connection with the national Israelitish history and hope, and like ‘‘the 
Son of God” has come to stand for the supramundane nature and dignity 
of Jesus (11:27; 20:31). ‘‘Son of man” occurs in twelve passages, but 
in most cases it takes strained exegesis to find special significance in its 
use, as for instance the emphatic acknowledgment on the part of Jesus of a 
human nature. The distinctive name is ‘‘Son of God,’’ sometimes with 
the Philonic epithet of ‘‘only-begotten” (1:14, 18; 3:16, 18). This 
sonship is literal and essential; Christ is a heavenly being, different in 
kind from men. He shared the glory of the Father before the world was, 
and by his own act entered the world as man; hence there is no need to 
introduce the tradition of the virgin-birth. As pictured by the synoptists 
Jesus fixed his thought on God’s fatherliness, his own sonship being a 
correlative, to be sure, but in the background. Father and Son imonlied a 
reciprocal fellowship; as in Hebrew thought, the son was the object of 
the Father’s favor, and the name was more personal than official. In the 
Fourth Gospel, however, both Fatherhood and Sonship approach a literal 
relationship. Of course sonship implies a distinction and a subordination 
(5:19; 12:50; 14:28). J. Weiss is in error when he says of John that “‘he 
does not even hesitate not only to say of the premundane Logos: he was 
God (1:1), but also lets the bodily risen one be addressed by Thomas as 
his God (20: 28). These are isolated instances, and the first is not correctly 
translated, while the second is an exclamation, found in reverse order in 
IPs: 35:23. 

Nevertheless there is an equally vital ethical and religious side to John’s 
Christology. He does not entirely forget that Jesus was a man with genu- 
inely. human and moral traits. Jesus revealed God perfectly to men 
because in him was realized an ideal communion with the Father (14:9, 10). 
His life and character made known God to men. He is Son of God by 
virtue of his inner life of fellowship, his obedience to the will of God, his 
love and devotion expressing itself in self-sacrifice (4:34; 5:30; 8:29; το: 

τ Christus: Die Anfdinge des Dogmas, S. 85, 86. 

105 


100 HISTORICAL AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES 


17, 37). The communion of the disciples with Jesus and of Jesus with the 
Father are placed side by side as though they were of the same kind. Even 
for Jesus, fellowship with God is conditioned; he is assured of the love of 
the Father only so long as he does his will. By this apprehension of the 
historical Jesus the moral element that was threatened under the influence 
of the doctrine of an abstract Logos is restored. 

The death of Jesus made possible his return to the disciples as an all- 
pervading presence for the larger task of gathering together into one the 
children of God that are scattered abroad (7:39; 10:16; 11:52, 17:20, 21). 
Bereft of his bodily presence, the disciples will have the Spirit. Now the 
conception of the Holy Spirit was a phase of primitive Christian thought 
of which John found it convenient to make special use. In certain passages 
the Spirit is expressly distinguished from Jesus (ἄλλος παράκλητος, 14:16, 
26; 15:26; 16:7, 14, 15), while in others the reference is to the presence 
of the glorified Redeemer (14:18; 16:16). After his resurrection Jesus 
breathed on the disciples and said: ‘‘Receive the Holy Spirit” (20:22). 
The confusion at this point is paralleled in every phase of the Johannine 
thought we have taken up, and is dissolved when we recall the varying 
influences and interests with which our many-sided author had to reckon. 

In relation to men it is the function of Jesus to disclose the mystery of 
the unseen God (1:18; 14:9), to bring grace and truth (1:14, 17), and to 
impart eternal life. He is the Water and Bread of life, the Light, the Way, 
the Shepherd, the Vine. It is not to his message but to himself that men 
are to look for salvation. In his discourses he does not teach, but asserts 
his divine character—his self-consciousness—his relation to God and 
men. The eternal life which he imparts is thought of in its essence after 
the manner of the Greeks, and in its ethical quality in the Hebrew spirit. 
The means by which men come to partake of eternal life is union with Christ, 
so intimate that prayer may be addressed immediately to God (16:23, 24), 
mystically grounded on an almost ontological relationship, ethically based 
on spiritual fellowship. The continuity of this divine life is such that death 
—the dissolution of the body—is but an incident. 

The Fourth Gospel is then an interpretation of Jesus—a setting-forth of 
his significance for the world. It is not to be taken as historical in form 
and detail. As an interpretation, however, its main contentions are not 
without support in the synoptic tradition. Love as the distinguishing mark 
of discipleship finds even larger expression in the synoptic account, while 
love as the central trait in the character of God in his relation to men finds 
place in the message of Jesus as recorded in the Synoptic Gospels (John 
3:16; 13:34, 35; Mark 12:30, 31; Matt. 5:43-48). The total impression 

106 


' OUTLINE OF NEW TESTAMENT CHRISTOLOGY 107 


of his life and character, his words and deeds, gained from the Synoptic 
Gospels, is that of one who reveals God, and that Christ manifests God 
is the fundamental conviction of the author of the Fourth Gospel. In 
the synoptic account the person of Jesus does not stand out so prominently 
as the source of salvation, but Jesus does invite the weary and heavy laden 
to come to him for refreshment and does represent his body and blood as 
given for his followers. He does not in the Synoptics ask for belief that 
he is the Son of God, who has come from heaven, but he does say: ‘‘ Follow 
me” (Mark 1:17). Now what kind of a being must he be of whom such 
things can be said? Τί is with this problem that the Fourth Gospel deals. 
John’s conviction of the divine sonship of Jesus finds support in the synop- 
tic tradition (Mark 1:11; 9:7; Matt. 11:27). From the beginning his 
followers had attempted to answer the question, but former categories 
and interpretations did not fully satisfy John’s experience and view of the 
world. The profound answer he himself has given is not surpassed by 
any thinker of the primitive Christian period. 
THE JOHANNINE EPISTLES 


There is little reference in these epistles to the historical Jesus—his 
message that God is light, his command to love, the mention of water and 
blood and of ‘‘the teaching of the Christ” (1:5; 3:11, 23; 5:6; IL John, 
vs. 9) being the possible allusions. 

As in the gospel, Christ is primarily the Revealer of the Father, and the 
Christian character corresponds with God’s character (“which thing is true 
in him and in you,” 2:8; 4:11, etc.). There is the same strange combina- 
tion of opposites: the teaching is now mystical, now intellectualistic, and 
yet so ethical that Christianity appears to be only a fulfilment of the law 
of love. J. Weiss! says that Jesus Christ is ‘‘ without hesitation” called 
“the true God” in 5:20, but the case is not so clear; further, it is possible 
that the closing verses are a later amplification. 

The explicit connection of the death of Christ with sin is more promi- 
nent than in the gospel. ‘‘The blood of Jesus his Son cleanses us from 
all sin” (1:7). ‘‘And he is a propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only 
but also for the whole world” (ἑλασμός, 2:2). Their sins are forgiven for 
his name’s sake—an expression not frequent in the New Testament (2:12). 
“‘He was manifested to take away sins and in him is no sin” (3:5). “In 
this is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us and sent his Son 
as a propitiation for our sins” (4:10). 

As in the gospel, the expectation of a final bodily resurrection is sub- 
ordinated to the present spiritual resurrection of believers (2:29; 3:14; 


t Christus, S. 84. 
107 


108 HISTORICAL AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES 


5:12). But the coming manifestation of Christ occupies a place that is 
not given it in the gospel (2:28; 3:2). The “‘last hour,” which has already 
arrived, as is witnessed by the rise of many antichrists, and “‘the day of 
judgment,” are mentioned (2:18;.4:17). Paul’s doctrine of Christ as an 
ever-living Intercessor (Rom. 8:34), elaborated in Hebrews (7:25), is here 
continued in the thought of an Advocate with the Father (παράκλητος πρὸς 
τὸν πατέρα, 2:1), Jesus Christ the righteous. 

Of special interest is the explicit reference to gnostic teachers, who 

were only implicitly present in the gospel. We learn that they are numer- 
ous, are itinerant preachers; they originally went out from the Christian 
community; the separation now between them and the churches is an 
open one, and its initiation was not from the side of the false leaders but 
the churches (2:18, 19; 4:4; II John, vss. 7, 10). They have met 
with a measure of success: ‘‘the world hears them” (4:5). The author 
sees in them the expected antichrists (2:18, 22; 4:3; II John, vs. 7). 
They are not to be received into the house or greeted, for greeting would 
mean participation in their evil works (II John, vss. το, 11). 
' Their chief offense is their false Christology: the denial that Jesus is 
the Christ and the denial of the Father and the Son (2:22; 4:2, 3; 5:1, 
5-8; 11 John, vss. 7-9). The docetic error is apparent enough. There is 
also the contention on their part that the union between the Christ and the 
man Jesus was only transitory and external, beginning with the baptism 
and closing with the sufferings.t In opposition to this the author asserts 
that Jesus Christ came not only with the water but with the water and the 
blood, that is to say, not only in baptism but in suffering (5:6, 8). With 
this interpretation agree the opening words to the effect that the Word of 
life was heard, seen, and handled (1:1-3). The textual reading of λύει in 
4:3 instead of μὴ ὁμολογεῖ is significant: whoever divides the historical 
person of Jesus is not of God. The denial that Christ has suffered with 
and for men robs his death of significance (1:7; 2:2; 4:10). Another 
error is that of antinomianism—the contention that the Christian man is 
bound by no law (1:8, 10; 2:4). 

Our author is not content to denounce and condemn, like Jude, Second 
Peter, and the Pastoral Epistles, but he exhibits the true gospel in opposition 
to the false gnosis. With the gospel of the same school he insists upon the 
reality of Christ’s appearance in the flesh, demands obedience as well as 
knowledge, and employs the categories of light, life, and love. It is a 
striking fact that there is no direct allusion to the Old Testament. 


«It is this docetic interpretation of Jesus that appears in the Gospel of Peter: 
“« And the Lord cried out and said: My power, my power, thou hast forsaken me. And 
when he had said it, he was taken up.” ἢ 
108 


XII. THE IGNATIAN CHRISTOLOGY 


The seven genuine letters of Ignatius' and the letter of Polycarp to the 
Philippians were written either during the latter part of Trajan’s reign,? 
or during that of Hadrian (117-38 A.bD.).3 These letters present an 
interesting contrast from a christological standpoint, and those of Ignatius 
mark the beginnings of a new type of Christology. 

I. POLYCARP 


The epistle of Polycarp to the Philippians was occasioned by a com- 
munication from the Philippian church to Polycarp, requesting that he 
convey to Syria a letter they had written at Ignatius’ suggestion, and asking 
also that he send them any of Ignatius’ letters he might have, as well as 
a letter from himself for their edification (3:1, 13). Polycarp wrote to 
them simply, practically, and temperately. Most striking is his large use 
of the New Testament books. The repeated use of First Peter attracted 
the attention of Eusebius.4 Great value attached to the words of Jesus, 
which are introduced as in First Clement with the formula: ‘‘The Lord 
said” (2:3; 7:2). Paul is referred to by name, especially in connection 
with the fact that in person he taught the Philippians carefully and surely 
and when absent wrote them a letter (or “‘letters,” ἐπιστολάς). In one 
instance the words of Paul are quoted as from sacred Scriptures (12:1: 
“sacris literis . . . . his scripturis”), but part of the quotation is from the 
Old Testament (Ps. 4:5; Eph. 4:26), which Polycarp probably had in 
mind. 

Although he is not animated with the dogmatic spirit of the fiery Igna- 
tius, yet he takes occasion to warn against prevailing false doctrine. Ever 
prone to regard matter as the source of evil, gnostic teachers denied that 
Christ entered into actual contact with earthly things; his coming in the 
flesh and his suffering and death were illusory. The resurrection of 
believers was spiritual only. Turning from these false teachings to the 
word delivered from the beginning, Polycarp declares: ‘‘For everyone who 
does not confess that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is Antichrist, and 

τ It is to be noted that Pfleiderer (Urchristentum, II, S. 227), although he had, 


along with the Tiibingen critics, opposed the genuineness of these letters, later ac- 
knowledged that Lightfoot had convinced him of their genuineness. 


2 Euseb., 7. £. 3:36. 

3 The traditional date is 107; Lightfoot gives 110, Harnack 117, Pfleiderer 130. 

4H. E. 4:15: κέχρηταί τισι μαρτυρίαις ἀπὸ τῆς Πέτρου προτέρας ἐπιστολῆς. 
109] 109 


110 HISTORICAL AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES 


whoever confesses not the testimony of the cross is of the devil, and who- 
ever perverts the oracles of the Lord to his own desires and says that 
there is neither resurrection nor judgment, that man is the firstborn of 
satan?” (721): 

The language used of Christ is in general that of the traditional Christol- 
ogy (2:1, 2). As in First Peter and Clement, the example of the Lord 
is appealed to in an ethical manner (2:2, 3). Christ is most frequently 
called ‘‘our Lord;” once, as in Hebrews, ‘“‘the eternal high priest” (12:2: 
sempiternus pontifex for 6 αἰώνιος ἀρχιερεύς). If we follow the quota- 
tions in Timotheus and Severus instead of the Latin there is a reference to 
the ‘‘God Jesus Christ” in 12:2, after the style of Ignatius; and farther 
on in the same passage there is similar language according to a not improb- 
able Latin reading. 

It is in line with a tendency of the time that the Christian prophets 
are ignored, and appeal is made to the Lord himself who gave command- 
ment, the apostles who preached the gospel, and the prophets who pro- 
claimed beforehand the coming of our Lord (6:3). 


II. IGNATIUS 


Circumstances connected with his approaching martyrdom occasioned 
the seven genuine letters of Ignatius that we possess. He has been con- 
demned to the wild beasts, on what definite charge is not known to us, 
and the Flavian amphitheater is the appointed place of execution. At 
the time of his departure for Rome the peace of his Antiochene church is 
disturbed. On his Romeward journey he is in the custody of ten soldiers, 
‘leopards,’ who treat him with harshness. On reaching Smyrna he 
receives delegates from churches of Asia Minor. Four of his letters written 
from this place are extant. Those addressed to the Ephesians, Magnesians, 
and Trallians, who had sent delegates to him at Smyrna, have to do with 
doctrine and ecclesiastical order. The fourth, that to the Romans, written 
on the twenty-fourth of August, is occupied with the thought of his coming 
martyrdom. He fears that his friends will interpose in his behalf, and 
thereby inflict a wound upon him. Here his fierce enthusiasm reaches 
its highest point. He longs for the honor of discipleship which martyrdom 
will confer upon him. He is wheat of God, and is ground by the teeth of 
wild beasts, so as to be found pure bread of the Christ (4:1). From Troas 
he writes three letters. The first and second are addressed to the churches 
of Philadelphia and Smyrna, which he had visited personally on the route; 
the third is to Polycarp, bishop of Smyrna. Having heard that peace has 
been restored in the church at Antioch, he desires that the churches with 

110 


OUTLINE OF NEW TESTAMENT CHRISTOLOGY 111 


which he communicates and Polycarp send delegates or letters to Syria to 
congratulate and exhort the Antiochene brotherhood. 

Ignatius is tremendously impressed with the fact that the churches are 
confronted with a real danger from false doctrine. Doctrinal purity, the 
unity of the faith, is to be secured by strict ecclesiastical order, of which 
the bishop is the center; this is urged in every letter. Everywhere it is 
apparent that it is a thoroughgoing docetism against which his teaching 
is directed, such as is dealt with in the epistle to the Colossians, the Johan- 
nine epistles and gospel, and the Pastoral Epistles. Before the mind of 
Ignatius is a particular form of Judaistic Gnosticism. Now we know 
that Antioch was a center of gnostic syncretism. Saturninus, a native 
of Antioch who flourished 1oo-120 A. D., taught that Christ was without 
birth, body, or figure, appearing in semblance asa man. Basilides flourished 
during the reign of Hadrian; he was educated in Syria and the East, and 
taught in Alexandria. It was his contention that Simon the Cyrenian was 
crucified, by a trick or magic, instead of Jesus.! 

A few passages from Ignatius will suffice to show how he meets these 
errors. Against phantasmal conceptions he urges the word ἀληθῶς. The 
birth, passion, and resurrection of Jesus Christ truly and assuredly took 
place in the time of the governorship of Pontius Pilate.? 

Be deaf, therefore, when any man speaks to you apart from Jesus Christ, 
who was of the race of David, the son of Mary, who was truly born and ate and 
drank, was truly*persecuted under Pontius Pilate, was truly crucified and died 
in the sight of those in heaven and on earth and under the earth; who was also 
truly raised from the dead, his Father having raised him; and he will in like 
manner raise us who believe on him—that is, his Father will raise us in Christ 
Jesus, apart from whom we have no true life. But if it were as certain persons 
who are godless, that is unbelievers, say, that he seemed to suffer, being themselves 
the seeming, why am I bound, and why also do I desire to fight with wild beasts ? 
So I die in vain; accordingly then I lie against the Lord.3 


To the Smyrnaeans he writes: 


I glorify Jesus Christ the God who bestowed such wisdom upon you; for I 
have perceived that you are established in immovable faith, nailed as it were on 
the cross of the Lord Jesus Christ both in flesh and spirit, settled in love in the 
blood of Christ, fully persuaded with reference to our Lord that he is truly of the 
race of David according to the flesh, Son of God according to the will and power 
of God, born truly of a virgin, baptized by John that all righteousness might be 
fulfilled by him, truly nailed up in the flesh for our sakes under Pontius Pilate 
and Herod the tetrarch—of which fruit are we, of his most blessed passion—that 

« Iren., Haer. 1:24: 4. 

2 Mag. 11. 3 Tral. Ὁ, Io. 

111 


112 HISTORICAL AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES 


he might raise a signal unto the ages through the resurrection for his saints and 
faithful ones, whether among Jews or among gentiles, in one body of his church. 
For he suffered all these things for our sakes, that we might be saved; and he 
suffered truly, as he also truly raised himself (an unusual expression), not as 
some unbelievers say, that he seemed to suffer, being themselves the seeming; 
and as they think, it shall also happen to them, because they are bodyless and 
demoniacal. For I know and believe that he was in the flesh even after the 
resurrection. And when he came to those who were about Peter, he said to 
them: Take, handle me and see that I am not a bodyless demon. And instantly 
they touched him and believed, holding to his flesh and spirit. Wherefore they 
also despised death, moreover were found superior to death. And after the 
resurrection he ate with them and drank with them as sarkical, though he was 
spiritually united with the Father (1-3). 


We are constantly coming upon the most striking and startling expres- 
sions. He delights in speaking of ‘‘ Jesus Christ our God.” He mentions 
“‘the blood of God” (Eph., chap. 1) and ‘“‘the passion of my God” (Rom. 
6:3). ‘Our God Jesus the Christ was conceived in the womb by Mary” 
(18:2). ‘‘Even the heavenly beings and the glory of the angels and the 
rulers both visible and invisible” are under the necessity of believing in 
Christ’s blood for salvation.t False teachers appealed to the archives— 
doubtless chiefly the Old Testament scriptures. Ignatius is willing to quote 
what is written, but adds: ‘‘But as for me, my archives are Jesus Christ; 
the inviolable archives are his cross and death and his resurrection and 
the faith which is through him” (Phil. 8:2). Jesus Christ is the ‘‘door 
of the Father,” through which prophets and apostles and the church enter 
(Phil. 9:1). ‘‘There is one God who manifested himself through Jesus 
Christ his Son, who is his word proceeding from silence, who in all things 
pleased him that sent him.’’? 

The prophets in whom Ignatius believes are those of the Old Testa- 
ment. ‘‘For the divine prophets lived according to Christ Jesus. For 
this cause also they were persecuted, being inspired by his grace... . . 
Even the prophets, being his disciples in the spirit, were expecting him as 
their teacher; and on this account he whom they rightly awaited, when he 
came, raised them from the dead.’’3 

‘“‘Wherever the bishop appears, there let the multitude be; just as 
wherever Christ Jesus is, there is the universal church.”’4 

The contrast between these two contemporaries and friends, Polycarp 
and Ignatius, is striking throughout. In Polycarp there is no mention of 


1 Smyr. 6:1. 3 Mag. 8:2; 0:3. 
2 Mag. 8:2. 4Smyr. 8:2: ἡ καθολικὴ ἐκκλησία. 
112 


OUTLINE OF NEW TESTAMENT CHRISTOLOGY 113 


the episcopate, though in Ignatius it constitutes the guarantee of orthodoxy 
and unity. In Polycarp there is no word about the unity of the church, 
the only occurrence of ἐκκλησία being in the address. Ignatius turned to 
large practical use the Pauline thought of the oneness of the church as the 
body of Christ. 

Ignatius is akin to Paul on the mystical side, especially in his emphasis 
upon the union of the believer with Christ. Polycarp’s likeness to Paul is 
on the practical and ethical side; his letter resembles First Peter, Clement, 
and the Pastoral Epistles. Ignatius speaks of Jesus Christ and Christ Jesus; 
Polycarp of the Lord and our Lord, with and without the addition of Jesus 
Christ. Three times in Polycarp we read of “God and Christ” (3:3; 5:2, 
3); not at all in Ignatius. There is in Polycarp nothing of the blood and 
suffering of God. He mentions the cross of Christ twice (7:1; 12:2) in 
referring to enemies of the true faith, and the blood of Christ once (2:1), 
as a crime demanding vengeance. On the other hand Ignatius lays the 
greatest stress on the passion and death of Christ, though he does not 
develop its theological significance, as Paul attempted to do. 

Polycarp, the younger man, is the sane and conservative representative 
of the apostolic tradition; Ignatius, the elder, realizing present dangers 
and looking toward the future, is the passionate champion of the new, the 
pioneer in doctrine and polity, masterful in personality and pre-eminent 
in originality, surpassed only in his generation by that profound religious 
genius of the same part of the world whose spiritual insight into the char- 
acter of Jesus and prevailing religious tendencies brought to the interpre- 
tation of the person of Christ more enduring expression in the Fourth 
Gospel. 


113 


XIII. CHRISTOLOGY IN THE EPISTLE OF BARNABAS 
AND IN LATER WORKS 


I. THE EPISTLE OF BARNABAS 


The Epistle of Barnabas is a monument of Alexandrian Christianity. 
The earliest notices of it are found in the Alexandrian Fathers. The closing 
chapters (18-21; ἑτέρα γνῶσις) constitute a manual of Christian conduct 
to be viewed apart from the rest of the book, both internal and manuscript 
evidence weighing against original unity. On the basis of chap. 4 Lightfoot 
would date the work in Vespasian’s reign (70-79 A. D.), but the allusion 
to the Roman emperors is too uncertain and elastic for the fixing of the 
date. UHarnack finds in chap. 16 a reference to the proposed building of 
the heathen temple at Jerusalem under Hadrian in 130 or 131. The 
allusion is doubtful, but this later date comes nearer corresponding to the 
general course of thought in the epistle. 

The most striking characteristic of the epistle is the author’s peculiar 
attitude toward Judaism and the Old Testament. In his rejection of 
Judaism and his Christianizing of the Old Testament he stands on familiar 
orthodox ground. But he does not hold with the author of the Epistle 
to the Hebrews that historical Judaism was a divinely ordained and prepara- 
tory stage of revelation. For Barnabas it was a perversion of true religion 
due to an entire misunderstanding. He is likewise removed from the 
gnostic opposition between the Old Testament and the New, as though 
the Old Testament were the work of another and lower God than the God 
of Christianity. Yet he approaches that position more nearly than orthodox 
Christian writers would have dared in a later time, when the lines were 
closely drawn; for he represents that the practice of circumcision was due 
to the suggestion of an evil angel (9:4). Nevertheless the Old Testament 
is still for him divine revelation and is quoted throughout as authoritative. 
Only it is so thoroughly Christianized by the allegorical method familiar 
to Alexandrians that the spiritual meaning alone is left. The Jews mis- 
understood the law and the prophets from beginning to end. Sacrifice, 
circumcision, the distinction of clean and unclean meats, the Sabbath, 
and worship in a material temple were not originally intended to be literally 
observed. Commands for such ordinances were uttered in a spiritual 
sense. : 

The same world of gnostic thought is probably presupposed, as stands 
uot prominently in the passionate exhortations and denunciations of 
114] 114 


OUTLINE OF NEW TESTAMENT CHRISTOLOGY 115 


Ignatius. But however vigorously they might protest against the new ideas, 
most of the writers who came in contact with them were influenced by 
them and in a measure appropriated them. An example is found in the 
Epistle to the Ephesians, and a still better example in the Fourth Gospel. 
Now the same is true of Barnabas. He too can protest: note the polemics 
against esoteric customs and other errors (4:10; 3:6; 4:6). He is certainly 
not a docetist. The Son of God really came and suffered in the flesh (chap. 
5). But some of his language is so close to docetism that it would not have 
been kindly received by the church at a somewhat later period, as the follow- 
ing: ‘‘See again Jesus, not Son of man but Son of God, yet in type (τύπῳ) 
manifested in flesh. Since then they are going to say that Christ is son 
of David, David himself, fearing and understanding the error of sinners, 
prophesies: The Lord said to my Lord: Sit on my right hand till I set 
thine enemies a footstool of thy feet... . . See how David calls him Lord 
and does not call him son.” 

The passage, “‘As it is written, Many called but few chosen,” is sup- 
posed to mark the words of Jesus as Holy Scripture (4:14), but it is possible 
the quotation is from another source, and ὡς γέγραπται may be employed 
in a more general sense. The thought of the inspiration of Old Testament 
prophets by Christ, occurring in First Peter, Clement, and Ignatius, appears 
here: “ὙΠῸ prophets, receiving grace from him, prophesied concerning 
him” (5:6). As Lord of all the world he was consulted by God in the 
creation of man (5:5). 

With First Peter and Ignatius, following Paul, he emphasizes the death 
of Christ as a means of redemption: ‘‘For to this end the Lord endured to 
deliver his flesh to corruption, that by the forgiveness of sins we might be 
cleansed, which is by the blood of his sprinkling. ... . Now he himself 
endured that he might destroy death and show the resurrection from the 
dead, because it was necessary that he be manifested in flesh, that he might 
also redeem the promise made to the fathers and by preparing the new 
people for himself might show, while he was on the earth, that having 
himself brought about the resurrection he will judge” (5:1, 6, 7). He 
came also for judgment upon those who slew his prophets (5:11)—not only 
a familiar messianic thought, but also in another way a prominent Johannine 
conception. The doctrine of regeneration appearing in First Peter and 
the Johannine writings is here set forth repeatedly: ‘‘Since then he renewed 
us in the remission of sins, he made us another type, so as to have the soul 
of children, as if he were creating us anew” (6:11). The abode of our 
heart is a holy temple to the Lord (6:15). ‘‘If then the Son of God, 

t 12:10, 11; Pfleiderer, Urchr., II, S. 560, 562, pushes the author’s words too far. 
115 


110 HISTORIOAL AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES 


being Lord and about to judge living and dead, suffered, that his wound 
might make us alive, let us believe that the Son of God could not suffer 
except for our sakes” (7:2). 

The connection between faith and hope is similar to that in First Peter, 
with the added element of γνῶσις. The author writes in order that 
with their faith the readers may have their γνῶσις perfect. The three 
dogmas of the Lord are hope of life, righteousness, and love. Hope of life 
is the beginning and end of our faith (1:5, 6). The new law of our Lord 
Jesus Christ is without a yoke of constraint (2:6). The covenant of the 
beloved Jesus is sealed unto our hearts in the hope of faith in him (4:8). 


Il. THE EPISTLE OF JAMES 


The Epistle of James is singularly misunderstood when taken to repre- 
sent pre-Pauline Christianity. It is a practical homily arising probably 
in the second quarter of the second century, possibly somewhat earlier; but 
neither external attestation nor the conditions reflected favor an early date. 
The author was probably a Hellenistic Jew, but the wall between Jewish 
and gentile Christianity had long been broken down, and the homily 
betrays no reminiscence of the old issues. The address ‘‘to the twelve 
tribes which are of the Diaspora,” in imitation it would seem of I Pet. 1:1, 
possibly attached by a later hand, is as in First Peter figuratively applied 
to Christians in general. Hermas makes the same kind of use of “‘the 
twelve tribes.”! Christians had entered into the heritage of the Jews 
as God’s chosen people; Paul’s doctrine of Christ’s people as the true 
Israel passed over into the consciousness of the church.? Such election 
was ever conditioned on men’s conduct.3 The mention of the synagogue 
in 2:2 need not surprise us; Hermas uses the word in the same way.4 
The likeness to Hermas suggests Rome as the place of composition. Both 
are protests of popular piety against the secularization of the church 
through wealth and intellectual pride. The apocalyptic element of Hermas 
is wanting in the straightforward Epistle of James; otherwise the general 
conceptions and the conditions to which they are addressed are the same. 
James makes the larger use of other literature; his mind is well furnished 
with the Old Testament and later Jewish and Christian literature, but he 
does not make direct quotations. The epistle is a good specimen of the 
Jewish Wisdom-literature as it was carried over into the Christian church, 
and we are reminded of the Sermon on the Mount. 

Admonitions against erroneous teachers are like those of Hermas.s 

1 Sim. 9:17:1. 

2 As in II Clem. 2:3. 4 Man. 11:0, 13, 14. 

3 II Pet. r:10; Her. Sim. 8:6:2. 5 Ja. 3:13-18; Her. Man. 11; Sim. 8:9. 


116 


OUTLINE OF NEW TESTAMENT CHRISTOLOGY 117 


His characterization of pseudo-wisdom as psychical (3:15) reminds us of 
Jude, vs. 19. The intimation that some claim to be tempted of God 
(x:13) recalls the murmurers and complainers of Jude, vs. 16. Against 
an ultra-Pauline gnosis he appeals for a practical Christianity. 

The conception of Christ as the revealer of a new and higher law for the 
government of human life—a view common to nearly all writings of the 
latter part of the first Christian century and of the second—here finds strik- 
ing expression. Outside of the Ebionitic communities of Palestine, whose 
members were the successors of the Judaizers, the name of the apostle 
Paul was ever held in high honor, and his influence had entered permanently 
into the Christian movement. But the Christianity of the latter part of 
the first century and of the second century was of quite another type. 
Paul’s teachings had grown out of his own experience, and it could not 
be expected that gentiles and Hellenistic Jews who had not undergone 
the same discipline of conscience and never possessed natures of such 
religious depth should appreciate or understand his profound way of 
putting things. Other missionaries had their own way of seeing things, 
and the easiest and most natural way was that of thinking of their religion 
as God’s law revealed in Jesus Christ. The freedom of the Christian, 
whether gentile or Jew, from all obligation to observe the Jewish cere- 
monial law was no longer questioned; the old controversy was well-nigh 
forgotten. Among non-Christian Hellenistic Jews and proselytes there 
were many to whom the observance of ceremonial rites meant almost 
nothing; their religion consisted of faith in one God, his moral law, and 
a final judgment. When they became Christians, righteousness still 
consisted in obedience to the revealed law of God; but it was a ‘‘perfect 
law which is of freedom,” a “royal law” (1:25; 2:8, 12); as Barnabas has 
so happily put it, “‘the new law of our Lord Jesus Christ which is without 
a yoke of constraint.”* It really meant a new standard of living, and 
practically just that kind advocated by Paul. But Paul’s bold principle 
was that the Christian is free from all external law; the very presence of 
Christ in the heart of the believer makes him a free child of God. For 
Jesus likewise, religion consisted in the filial relation to God expressing 
itself in unselfish love. 

For James the law of Christ was not a burden, but a blessing, a part of 
the gospel, opening to men the way of life, as in Hermas.?, The man who 
stands firm under temptation will, when he has endured the test, receive 
the crown of life (1:12). God chose the poor as to the world to be rich 
in faith and heirs of the kingdom which he promised to those who love him 

τ Bar. 2:6. a Sim. 6:11:1. 


117 


118 HISTORICAL AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES 


(2:5). The parousia of the Lord, which is at hand, is awaited with joy 
Hy pie) 

: oan thought of faith as a spiritual act in which we identify ourselves 

with Christ in his death and resurrection. For James it is the opposite 

of doubt and doublemindedness (1:6, 8; 2:22), as in Hermas (Man., 

chap. 9) and Second Clement (chap. 11), or it is bare belief. 

There is no further reference to the redemptive work of Christ. James 
calls himself “ἃ bondservant of the Lord Jesus Christ” (1:1), and calls 
him ‘‘the Lord of glory” (2:1). The Lord’s teachings as recorded in the 
synoptic gospels are drawn upon. He is the Judge standing before the 
doors.t To him is probably the reference in 4:12: ‘‘One is lawgiver and 
judge, he who is able to save and to destroy.” 

With the conception of Jesus as a lawgiver which prevailed in the church 
at this time it will be interesting to compare the view of Marcion, which 
rested on a Pauline basis and excluded everything that did not harmonize 
with the gospel preached by Paul. Marcion was a man of sincerity, 
energy, and deep religious faith, though in the eyes of church writers he 
was demon, firstborn of Satan, Jew, heathen, heretic, and wolf. Writing 
in the middle of the second century, Justin Martyr says that Marcion’s. 
preaching had already spread κατὰ πᾶν γένος dvOpérwv?—that is, in a 
period of about ten years. Unfortunately we are dependent on anti- 
heretical writings for his views. 

Marcion was opposed to all statutory religion, and believed that the 
prevailing form of Christianity had been corrupted by Judaism; accordingly 
he sought to sever Christianity from the Old Testament. We are not here 
concerned with his gnostic views—enough that he popularized and simpli- 
fied Gnosticism, making it no longer the secret doctrine of a school but the 
faith of a church appealing to the masses. What now interests us is that. 
he was able to discern the religious peculiarity of Christianity in distinction. 
from Judaism—to grasp the Pauline idea of Christ’s relation to the 
law. His disciple Apelles held that those who hoped in the Crucified 
would be saved, if only they were found doing good works.3 Tertullian+ 
reveals Marcion’s point of view: ‘‘Sufficit unicum opus deo nostro, quod 
hominem liberavit summa et praecipua bonitate sua.”’ Tertullian complains. 
that the Marcionites do not fear God at all, claiming that only a bad man 
is to be feared, while a good man is to be loved. If they were asked why 
then they did not sin, they answered, ‘‘God forbid!’ (Rom. 6:1, 2).5 

LIF 0.» 566. ΑΡΌΟΟ- 3): 20: SADE RS Ἐ7. ἘΠ a 15: Ὁ: 

2 Apol. 150. 4 Adv. Marc. 1:27. 


5 On Marcion see especially Harnack, Dogmengeschichte, 1, 5. 254-71 (History of 
Dogma, I, pp. 266-86). 


118 


OUTLINE OF NEW TESTAMENT CHRISTOLOGY 119 


Til. THE SHEPHERD OF HERMAS 


This work is the most extensive that comes before us for consideration 
in our period. The author was a slave by birth, probably originally from 
Arcadia but sold by his master to a Roman lady.t' He seems to have 
become a freedman and to have engaged in commercial pursuits. His 
parables are mostly taken from country life. He was a humble, simple- 
minded, devout man, who was deeply sensible of evil within himself and 
in the church. His characteristic message is that of repentance. He 
delivers his message in apocalyptic fashion as from divine messengers. 
The Muratorian Fragment of the end of the second century says that he 
was brother of Pius, bishop of Rome (140-55 A.D.). Internal evidence 
confirms this dating of the book. The church had experienced ‘‘scourges, 
prisons, great tribulations, crosses, wild beasts, for the sake of the Name.”’? 
The work was not produced at one time, but probably stretches over a 
period of at least ten years.3 Something of a difficulty is raised by the 
command to Hermas to write two copies of his book and to send one to 
Clement and one to Grapte, whereupon Clement would send his to foreign 
cities and Grapte would admonish the widows and orphans; he himself 
is to read it in Rome along with the presbyters who preside over the church.4 
One thinks at once of Clement of Rome, the author of the letter written 
to the Corinthian church about g5 A. D., but it is difficult to get this work 
back that far. The name was a common one in Rome. 

The work consists of five Visions, twelve Commandments, and ten 
Parables (unhappily called Similitudes). The book takes its name from 
the prominent part played in it by the angel of repentance, who appeared 
to Hermas in the guise of a shepherd and bade him write down the com- 
mandments and parables he would declare to him (Vis. 5). 

Perhaps we ought not to look too closely for Christology in Hermas. 
There are whole sections much longer than the Epistle of James which 
contain just as little Christology as James. The conception of Christ is 
about that of the church writings of the period, but it is not always set 
forth in the current terms. Christianity is the new law and Christ the 
Lawgiver: ‘‘Having then purged away the sins of the people he showed 
them the paths of life, giving them the law which he received from his 
Father.”5 He is also the Judge, who decides which stones should be 
accepted or rejected in the building of his church. He is the Councilor 
of God, the holy, pre-existent Spirit, who created every creature, and 

VISE CEs SM. οἵ τ: 2. 

}15.3.:.2.11- 4 Vis. 2:4:3. 

3. ΝΊ5: 5: ΤΥ: δ. δ; Sims Ost. 5)Sim., 5:6: 2: 

119 


120 HISTORICAL AND LINGUISTIO STUDIES 


whom God made to dwell in flesh. The Spirit of God was united with 
the σάρξ, which was nobly subject to the Holy Spirit. He lived excellently, 
purely, vigorously, and courageously, co-operating with the Spirit (Sim. 
5:6). The universality of Christ’s saving mission is everywhere recognized. 
Even Old Testament characters in Hades stood in need that apostles and 
teachers should preach to them the name of the Son of God and administer 
to them Christian baptism (Sim. 9:16, 17). 

His favorite title for Christ is ‘‘the Son of God.” There is no mention 
of ‘‘Jesus” and “‘Christ.’’ Κύριος is used of God. In the eighth parable 
the angel shows Hermas a great willow tree overshadowing plains and 
mountains and all the earth, and under its shade have come all that are 
called by the name of the Lord. This mighty tree is the Law of God 
given to go forth into all the world; and the Law is the Son of God pro- 
claimed to the ends of the earth, and the peoples under the shade are they 
that hear the proclamation and believe on him. In the ninth parable 
the rock and the gate of the tower are the Son of God. The rock is old 
and the gate isnew. The rock is old because the Son of God is older than 
his creatures; he was Fellow-councilor with the Father in the work of 
creation. The gate is new because he became manifest in the days of the 
consummation, that those who are to be saved may enter by the gate into 
the kingdom of God (Sim. 9:12). 

A peculiarity is that he is prevailingly identified with the Holy Spirit: 
the Spirit is the Son of God (Sim. g:1:1). We recall that this usage was not 
unknown to Paul and John. Nor should we be surprised that he is asso- 
ciated with six angels as their head. Hermas knew nothing of the Logos- 
doctrine. Before that took possession of the field there were those in the 
church who expressed their conception of the nature and office of Christ 
by designating him an angel. 

There is no mention of the birth, death, resurrection, and ascension of 
Jesus; nothing is said of his priestly mediation and the atoning quality of 
his death. In his whole life and activity he saves, preserving and purifying 
God’s people, and pointing out the path of life by promulgating the divine 
law (Sim. 5:6:2). It would of course be rash to conclude that because in 
general the Pauline conception of redemption is wanting, the author actually 
excludes the expiatory death. 

Harnack? reduces the christological conceptions of our period to two, 
which are, strictly speaking, mutually exclusive: the Adoptian and the 
Pneumatic. According to the Adoptian Christology, Jesus is to be regarded 
as the man chosen by God, in whom the Spirit of God dwells; after being 

τ Dogmengeschichte, I, 5. 181-90 (History of Dogma, I, pp. 190-99). 

120 


OUTLINE OF NEW TESTAMENT CHRISTOLOGY 134 


tested he was adopted by God and invested with dominion. In the Pneu- 
matic Christology Jesus is a heavenly, spiritual being who took flesh and 
returned to heaven after the completion of his work on earth. Here are 
certainly two conceptions: a man who has become a God, and a divine 
being who has appeared in human form. But if Harnack is right in saying 
that “‘only one work has been preserved entire which gives clear expression 
to the Adoptian Christology, viz., the Shepherd of Hermas,” then we ought 
to raise its Christology to the rank of an independent, distinctive type to be 
co-ordinated with the great original types, and to call it ‘‘Adoptian Chris- 
tology.” But this classification confuses more than it helps. Harnack 
says that the Pneumatic Christology may be traced back to the Pauline, 
but hardly had its point of departure in Paul alone, being found also in 
Hebrews and the Johannine writings including the Apocalypse, and it is 
represented by Barnabas, First and Second Clement, Ignatius, Polycarp, 
and the Pastoral Epistles. He might with equal right have added Hermas 
and all the other Christian writings we have considered. 


Iv. THE DIDACHE 


The Didache is a composite work, reflecting accordingly several stand- 
points. In its present form it dates from about the middle of the second 
Christian century, finding its closest ethical and theological parallels in 
Hermas, James, and Second Clement. It has also relationship at more 
than one point with Barnabas. The proper title is: ‘Teaching of the 
Lord through the Twelve Apostles to the Nations.” The original docu- 
ment is doubtless the Greek lying behind a Latin manuscript discovered 
by Schlecht in 1899, entitled De Doctrina Apostolorum. This sets aside 
the older supposition of an original ‘““Two-Ways Document.” Schlecht’s 
Latin covers the first six chapters of the ‘‘Teaching” as we have it now 
in the fuller form, omitting certain gospel-quotations and other amplifica- 
tions. To this was added a church manual and an apocalyptical chapter. 
The rural atmosphere of the work in its expanded form would indicate 
that it originated not in Alexandria but in Upper Egypt. However, in 
spite of the great mass of Egyptian papyri from the second century now 
known to us, very little of the papyri shows Christian influence. 

The author regards Christianity in the aspect presented in Second 
Clement, as the truth made known to us by Christ. The point of view is 
brought out in the beautiful eucharistic prayers: ‘‘We give thee thanks, 
our Father, for the life and knowledge which thou hast made known to us 
through Jesus thy servant” (9:3). ‘We give thee thanks, holy Father, 
for thy holy name which thou hast made to dwell in our hearts, and for the 

121 


122 HISTORICAL AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES 


knowledge and faith and immortality which thou hast made known to us 
through Jesus thy servant..... On us thou hast bestowed spiritual 
food and drink and life everlasting through thy Servant... .. Remember, 
Lord, thy church to deliver her from all evil and to perfect her in thy love, 
and to gather her from the four winds, sanctified, into thy kingdom, which 
thou hast prepared for her. For thine is the power and the glory forever. 
Let grace come and this world pass away! Hosanna to the God of David!” 
(chap. 10). 

Baptism is, after preparatory fasting, to be administered in the name 
of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit (chap. 7). The eucharist 
is spiritual food and drink, securing eternal life, as we have seen (10:3); 
it is also the offering of the church, answering to the Old Testament sacrifice, 
valid only as accompanied by confession of sin and brotherly love (chap. 14). 
Its Pauline connection with the death of Christ for the forgiveness of sins 
is not here indicated. However, the broken bread which was scattered 
over the hills and brought together and made one, symbolizing the church 
gathered from the ends of the earth into the kingdom (9:4), reminds one 
of ar (Cor) 16:16; 17. 

The closing chapter is a bit of apocalyptic, drawn in part from the 
Synoptic Gospels, and in part, it would seem, from Barnabas (4:9). We 
have the last time, the false prophets, the world-seducer like a son of God, 
an apostasy on the part of some, an opening in heaven, the voice of a 
trumpet, the resurrection of the saints, the coming of the Lord upon the 
clouds of heaven (chap. 16). 


ΠΝ, SECOND CLEMENT 


Second Clement appears to be in the strict sense a homily or sermon 
(17:3; 19:1), whether actually preached or not. Harnack, however, identi- 
fies it with the long-lost letter which the Roman Christians under Bishop 
Soter (165-75 A.D.) sent to the Corinthians, and which was by them to be 
preserved along with the genuine letter of Clement. Lightfoot thinks that 
it was an anonymous Corinthian sermon, chap. 7 breathing the atmosphere 
of the stadium. Its traditional connection with First Clement and the 
kinship in thought to Hermas point toward Rome as its source. On the 
other hand the points of contact in thought with the Didache and with 
Second Peter and its use of an apocryphal gospel, probably that to the 
Egyptians, suggest Egypt. The word of the Lord cited in 12:2 is, accord- 
ing to Clement of Alexandria,? from the Gospel according to the Egyptians, 


t Euseb., H. E. 4:23:11. 


2 Strom. 3: 13. 
122 


OUTLINE OF NEW TESTAMENT CHRISTOLOGY {23 


and presumably other gospel quotations that are not otherwise known 
to us are from the same source (4:5; 5:3; 8:5). At any rate it is a typical 
Christian writing from about the middle of the second century. The 
Pauline coloring of First Clement is wanting. 

The christological standpoint is indicated in the opening words and 
in the closing doxology. “Brethren, we ought to think of Jesus Christ 
as of a God—as of a Judge of living and dead” (1:1). For, he goes on 
to say, to think meanly of him would be to place a low estimate upon our 
Christian salvation. Faith in the deity of Christ meant a corresponding 
estimate of the Christian religion, which as compared with Judaism and 
paganism was the absolute religion—a position emphasized in the Epistle 
to the Hebrews and the Fourth Gospel. Of course the relation of Christ 
to the Father and to the Holy Spirit is not yet defined as it was later. A 
passage from Isaiah is quoted as the word of Christ (3:4), and a saying 
of Jesus in the gospels is ascribed to God (13:4). The ascription of 
salvation now to God and now to Christ is common in Ignatius and the 
Johannine theology. So also Christ is identified with the Spirit: “If 
Christ the Lord who saved us, though he was first Spirit, became flesh 
and thus called us, then we also shall receive the reward in this flesh” (9:5). 
In 14:4 Christ is again said to be the Spirit. So in Hermas the pre-existent 
Christ is pre-eminently the Spirit, to whom other spirits are subordinate. 
The Johannine writings were apparently not known to either Clement or 
Hermas. 

The connection of Christ with truth and immortality is brought out 
in the final doxology: “To the only invisible God, Father of the truth, 
who sent us the Savior and Prince of incorruption, through whom also he 
revealed to us the truth and the heavenly life, to him be the glory unto the 
ages. Amen” (20:5). Christ’s revelation of God, immortality, and the 
way of life forms the very center of this writer’s Christology. Through 
Christ, who has displayed so great mercy toward us, we know the Father 
of truth (3:1). ‘‘He has graciously given us light; as a father he has 
addressed us as sons; he has saved us when we were perishing”’ (1:4). 
“Thus also did the Christ desire to save the things which were perishing, and 
saved many by his coming and calling us when we were already perishing”’ 
(2:7). The Pauline use of the death of Christ in this connection is almost 
wholly absent; in 1:2 we read: ‘“‘he submitted to suffer for our sakes.” 

Gradually the Greek spirit displaced the Jewish. The Jewish idea 
of the visible kingdom to be established on earth in the new age at Christ’s 
second coming was practically supplanted by the hope of the heavenly, 
~ eternal life in the presence of God and Christ and the saints. In some 
123 


124 HISTORICAL AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES 


circles the Jewish idea of the earthly messianic kingdom persisted. Yet the 
transition from the dualism of Jewish apocalypticism to the gentile dualism 
of matter and spirit was not difficult. ‘‘This age and the coming age are 
two enemies”’ (6:3). The corollary to the older messianic idea was the 
resurrection of the body. Even Paul placed emphasis on the spiritual 
side; the resurrection was a part of redemption from the flesh. But it 
is the resurrection of the flesh of which Second Clement speaks (g:1-s), 
as is also true of First Clement. 

Another aspect of his Christology is found in the relation between 
Christ and the church. Those who do the will of God are of the first, the 
spiritual church, which was created before sun and moon—the church of 
the life, the living church which is the body of Christ. God made man 
male and female; the male is Christ, the female the church (14:1-3). 
Likewise Hermas teaches that the church was created before all things, 
and the world was formed for her sake.? 


VI. THE EPISTLES OF JUDE AND SECOND PETER 
1. Jude 


This short and vigorous epistle probably dates from near the middle 
of the second century, though it may be much earlier. It is possible that 
the words ἀδελφὸς δὲ ᾿Ιακώβου did not stand in the original, in which case 
the work is not pseudonymous. The use of the Book of Enoch and of 
the Assumption of Moses and the writer’s possible knowledge of the Car- 
pocratian heresy suggest Alexandria as the place of composition. 

The aim and spirit of the letter are seen in the opening exhortation to 
contend for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints (vs. 3). 
As in the Pastoral Epistles, faith is the deposit handed down from apostolic 
days (vs. 20). The occasion for the epistle is the existence of a presumptu- 
ous and aggressive gnostic libertinism. It is evident that they were liber- 
tines on principle; that their libertinism was bound up with their gnostic 
system and justified by it: they turned the grace of God into lasciviousness 
(vs. 4), in their dreamings they defiled the flesh (vs. 8), their mouth spoke 
pompous words (vs. 16), and they made divisions, being themselves psychi- 
cal, having not the Spirit, though as implied they claimed the contrary 
(vs. 19). They perverted Paul’s doctrine of grace and freedom: for them 
all things were lawful and they continued in sin (I Cor. 6:12; Rom. 6:1). 
It was just this that the followers of Carpocrates and his son Epiphanes 
did. The Gnostics also recognized two classes of men: the spiritual, 
capable of the higher wisdom, who separated themselves from the mass of 

1 Vis. 2:4:1. 


124 


OUTLINE OF NEW TESTAMENT CHRISTOLOGY 125 


Christians; and the inferior, psychical natures. Against the pernicious 
teaching and living of these antinomians the author appeals to the words 
spoken beforehand by the apostles of the Lord Jesus Christ, who foretold 
that in the last time such scoffers would appear (vss. 17, 18)—an apparent 
reference to the Pastoral Epistles. 

The writer calls himself ‘a bondservant of Jesus Christ’? and addresses 
his letter to ‘“‘the called, beloved in God the Father and kept for Jesus 
Christ”’ (vs. 1). The false teachers denounced, who appear still to have 
met with the Christians in their love feasts (vs. 12), not only set at nought 
dominion (κυριότητα) and blasphemed glories (δόξας, perhaps angels, 
vs. 8), but even “denied our only Master (Δεσπότην) and Lord, Jesus 
Christ” (vs. 4). Such denial may have been the docetic denial of his true 
humanity, combated by Ignatius, or the denial that the man Jesus was 
the Christ, the Son of God, referred to in I John 2:22. The readers are 
to keep themselves in the love of God, “awaiting the mercy of our Lord 
Jesus Christ unto life eternal,” and putting forth efforts to reclaim these 
false teachers (vss. 21, 22). The epistle closes with a Pauline doxology, 
like that subjoined to Romans. 


tu. Second Peter 


Nearly the whole of Jude is incorporated substantially, but not very 
happily, in II Pet. 2:1—3:3. Second Peter is a pseudonymous work in 
the strictest sense, arising probably in the second half of the second century. 
The use of the name of Peter suggests Rome for its origin; the use of Jude 
points toward Egypt. The reference to Peter’s approaching death seems 
to recall the chapter added to the Fourth Gospel (1:14; John 21:18, 19). 
The author lacks the culture and depth of the writer of First Peter. The 
differences between the two epistles are fundamental throughout. The 
Paulinism, the use made of the example, the sufferings and the resurrec- 
tion of Christ in First Peter are wanting in Second Peter. 

The key-word of First Peter is hope; that of Second Peter is knowledge 
(γνῶσις, ἐπίγνωσις, 1:2, 3, 6, 8; 2:20, 21; 3:18). The writer is an 
opponent of the Gnostics, and yet betrays an unconscious sympathy with 
their way of thinking. Yet knowledge is for him of a practical and 


t The type of Gnosticism represented by Marcion and Apelles cannot justly be 
charged with identifying Christianity and knowledge; indeed, if such identification 
is Gnosticism, then their opponents were the Gnostics. Apelles said that he was 
persuaded that there was one principle (ula ἀρχή), but how he did not know; he 
believed there was one unbegotten God, but he did not know the how of it. Rhodon 
laughed and reproved him because, though calling himself a teacher, he knew not how 
to confirm what he taught (Euseb., H. E. 5:13:7). 


125 


126 HISTORICAL AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES 


religious character, including all things that belong to life and piety (1:3). 
A Greek idea of which the Gnostics made much—participation in the 
divine nature and liberation from the corruption of the world—is here 
appropriated (1:4). The authorities for Christian truth are the words 
spoken by the holy prophets and the commandment of the Lord and Savior 
through the apostles (3:2). Paul’s epistles are ranked high, being asso- 
ciated with “the other scriptures”’ (τὰς λοιπὰς γραφάς), which the unlearned 
and unsteadfast twist to their own destruction, as encouraging to license 
(3:15, 16). 

Faith in the second coming of Christ for salvation and judgment had 
been growing faint in some quarters on account of the long delay (3:4). 
The Gnostics rejected early Christian eschatology, including the second 
coming of Christ and the establishment of his kingdom on earth and the 
resurrection of the body. The fact is that this very tendency is apparent 
in general Christian literature at the time. But our author assures them 
that the day of the Lord is to come suddenly, the world is to be destroyed 
by fire, and from the wreck shall emerge new heavens and a new earth, 
in which dwells righteousness (3:10-13). The glory of the Transfigura- 
tion is pledge of a greater glory to be revealed in the parousia (1: 16-18). 
At the second advent is to be ushered in “‘the eternal kingdom of our Lord 
and Savior Jesus Christ” (1:11). 

False teachers who introduce destructive divisions (αἱρέσεις) deny the 
Master who bought them (τὸν ἀγοράσαντα αὐτοὺς δεσπότην, 2:1). 

Second Peter marks chronologically the close of the New Testament 
period. 


126 


CONCLUDING REMARKS 


When we in our modern world interpret Jesus anew in the light of our 
new experiences, we are but doing what men of the first and second Chris- 
tian centuries did, and what men have been doing ever since. In the 
reconstruction of our theological thinking that is now taking place, a new 
Christology is demanded; or, if we prefer not to use the word Christology 
in this connection, a new estimate of him whose life is the light of men, 
brought into relation with the rest of our knowledge. Many factors are 
entering into the situation. One of them must be an understanding of 
the way in which men have thought about Jesus in other ages. We have 
undertaken a study of the first period, which we are accustomed to think 
of as the richest and most creative that has yet been witnessed. It has 
been thought that a study of this character, designed in a purely historical 
spirit, might contribute toward the construction of the new Christology. 
There may be found in the foregoing pages no suggestion as to what use 
the theologian shall make of the material offered. We have been dealing 
largely with time-forms and symbols, content to leave to others an inter- 
pretation of the larger meanings. 

A genetic study of this character is now for the first time possible. A 
glance at the selected bibliography will suggest how recent is the literature 
dealing with the subject. The larger part falls within the present century. 
Biblical theology has already accomplished much in the discovery and 
presentation of the religious thought of persons and books in the New 
Testament, but until recently has not undertaken the more comprehensive 
task of presenting that thought in its genetic relations and development. 
Now that New Testament study has entered upon this new phase, it is 
hoped that there may be found in these pages a helpful presentation in 
outline of the rise and development of primitive Christology as reflected 
in the Christian literature of the New Testament period. 


127) 127 


The Sources οἱ Luke’s 
Perean Section 


τὰ yer 

" ‘a 

Dine od 
ek | 
γι 
“a 


The Sources of Luke’s 
Perean Section 


By . 
DEAN ROCKWELL WICKES, Pu.D. 


THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO PRESS 
CHICAGO, ILLINOIS 


Published December Igi2 


Composed and Printed By 
The University of Chicago Press 
Chicago, Illinois, U.S.A. 


TABLE OF CONTENTS 


CHAPTER PAGE 
I. Usrt sy MATTHEW OF MATERIAL FOUND ALSO IN LUKE’s PEREAN 
(LETTE MIAN TSG area κὰν Tr ee eng ΑΗ τ τι 
II. INNER EVIDENCE FOR DISTINCTNESS OF SOURCES BEHIND LUKE’S 
ἘΠΕ ΕΑ G'S Toe (ts ae ee ili LST GO Be 
III. Homocenetry or ΜΑΤΕΒΙΑΙ, ComMMON TO MATTHEW AND LUKE . 38 
IV. HOMOGENEITY OF A Bopy oF MATERIAL Not USED IN MATTHEW 44 
Pe eOURCES OF THE REST OF THE MATERIAL. . . . . «ss ὃς 
133] 5 


CHAPTER I 


USE BY MATTHEW OF MATERIAL FOUND ALSO IN LUKE’S 
PEREAN SECTION 


The portion of Luke’s Gospel from 9:51 to 18:14 has been noticed 
as a separate section from at least as early as the time of Eichhorn. In 
1794 he published" the hypothesis that it had constituted a document 
simply inserted by Luke in making his gospel. The fact has come to be 
recognized that its material either has no parallel whatever in another 
gospel or has its only parallels in parts of the gospels dealing with other 
periods of the life of Jesus.2_ There has also come to be associated with 
this extended portion of the gospel the first twenty-eight verses of Luke’s 
nineteenth chapter, the whole being called “Luke’s Perean section,” 
and described as “that portion of his record of the Perean ministry of 
which there are no parallels in Mark’s record of this period,” 9:51—18: 
TA; 19:1-28.3 

The fact that considerable portions of this material are closely paral- 
leled in Matthew, while other important portions apparently germane 
to Matthew’s purpose are not paralleled at all, suggests the possibility 
that a part and only a part of it was in Matthew’s possession.‘ 

According to their relation to Matthew’s use we may group the por- 
tions of Luke’s Perean section as follows: (1) those in which the simi- 
larity of Matthew and Luke is so close that the use of a common source 
may be said to be almost self-evident; (2) those less closely paralleled 
in Matthew, (a) some of which we may consider as from a common source, 
and (b) some of which we may decide probably came to the two from 
different sources; (3) portions which, if known to Matthew, he might 
easily have omitted; and (4) portions which it seems probable Matthew 
would have used if he had had them. 

1. The first group of passages may be enumerated as follows: Luke 
57,005 10:2—3, 12-15, 21: 22; 23 27: Εἔ: 0 13, 19-20, 23, 24-26, 20, 
ΠΡ 1 Ὁ; 12:2, 10, 22-31, 34, 30-40, 42-46; 13:26.21 34-35; ΤΑ 11; 


τ Allgemeine Bibliothek der biblischen Litteratur, 5. Band, S. 991-92, 995. 


2 Burton, Principles of Literary Criticism and the Synoptic Problem, 1904, pp. 29 
and 36. 


3 Ibid., p. 36. 
4 Cf. ibid., pp. 421. 
135] 7 


8 HISTORICAL AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES 


16:13; 17:1, 26-27. Difference of opinion is possible in some cases, and 
this list differs slightly from Harnack’s selection,’ but it seems clear that 
in these passages there was a literary connection between the two gos- 
pels; that is, that both made use of the same written material. 

2. Of the material less closely paralleled in Matthew (a) we may 
consider that a source common to the two gospels is indicated also in the 
following passages: Luke 10:4-11, 16; 11:2-4, 14-18, 21-22, 33, 39)- 
52; 12:3-9, II-12, 33, 49, 51-53, 58-59; 13:18-19, 28-29, 30; 14: 
26-27, 34-35(?); 16:16, 17-18; 17:2, 3-4, 6b, 23-24, 31, 33, 34-35, 373 
19:12-27. Combination or conflation with material from Mark by 
Matthew in his use of them appears in the case of Luke 10:4-11; 11:14- 
23; I2:1I-12; 13:18-19; 17:2, 31. The agreement of Matthew with 
Luke 17:31 against Mark is indeed confined to a preposition and its 
case, but the closeness of the correspondence of all three and the fact 
that Matthew in the same discourse uses much material closely preceding 
and following Luke 17:31 lead to the conclusion that the source of this 
also was in Matthew’s possession. While Mark in 9:42 has as close 
a parallel to Luke 17:2 as Matthew in 18:6, the fact that Matthew, who 
apparently used Mark as a source for this saying, has with it that found 
in Luke 17:1 shows that Matthew had the former in the source of Luke’s 
section as well as in Mark. While the differences from Luke 19:12-27 
in Matt. 25:14-30 seem to indicate that he was using another source 
than that of Luke, the correspondences, especially in the latter part, 
would seem to be best accounted for by supposing that Matthew had 
for this parable the source used by Luke, and thus he probably combined 
material from the two sources. Evidence that Matthew was not unused 
to making combinations of material from different sources may be found 
in Matt. 13:31-33; 12:25-30; 10:II-15; 23:1-36, when each is com- 
pared with its parallels. 

(6) There are other passages in Luke’s Perean section, however, 
which while they have partial parallels in Matthew differ so from those 
parallels that it seems probable the two gospels did not take them from 
acommon source. Such are το: 25-20; 13:23-24, 27; 14:15-24; 15:3-7. 
The probable use of an additional source by Matthew in his parallel 
to Luke 19:12-27 has just been noticed. Luke 10: 25-29 differs from the 
other passages grouped here in that its partial parallel in Matthew is 
derived from Mark. If there is any evidence that Matthew had this 
passage before him, it is to be found in certain verbal agreements with 


« The Sayings of Jesus, pp. 1-40, which includes 10:76; 11:26; 19:26; and omits 
τ] 20 hr 
136 


THE SOURCES OF LUKE’S PEREAN SECTION 9 


it in 22:35-40 against Mark 12:28-34. These are in the use of the 
words “lawyer,” “trying,” “teacher,” “in the law,” the conjunction 
δέ, and in the Old Testament quotation the omission of “Hear, O Israel; 
The Lord our God, the Lord is one,’’ and the use of the preposition ἐν 
with the dative in the last two phrases. But Matthew’s quotation 
differs from both Luke’s and Mark’s in having only three prepositional 
phrases, and in using év with the first of them, showing that it was not 
Luke’s form but probably as elsewhere’ the Hebrew Old Testament that 
led to the changes. 

That Matthew should omit the first part given in his primary source 
under the influence of a subsidiary source would seem hardly probable. 
Matthew may have preferred the more specific term “lawyer” to 
“scribe,” as the question here was one of the law. ‘Trying’ is interpre- 
tation on the part of Matthew, justified by the commendatory answer 
of the scribe in Mark 12:32, which he omitted. Matthew had recently, 
in 22:18, taken the same verb from Mark, and at other times the same 
expression (16:1 and 19:3). ‘‘Teacher,” a common word for address 
to Jesus, Matthew might have taken from Mark, vs. 32. Matthew’s 
‘in the law”’ seems a natural further defining of Mark’s ‘‘command- 
ment,’”’ and the use of the conjunction is characteristic of Matthew’s 
changing of the style of Mark. The partial agreement in order of the 
common words seems almost inevitable and to have little weight for a 
common source. Thus while it is not impossible that Matthew knew the 
source of Luke 10: 25-29, the evidence for it is hardly decisive. 

The lack of close agreement with Luke 13:23-24 and 27 in Matt. 
7:13-14 and 23, together with the fact that Matthew is pretty clearly 
using material from another source in the immediate context, seems to 
indicate that Matthew was not there using the source of these passages 
in Luke. The wide differences both in content and in form between 
Luke 14:15-24 and Matt. 22:1-10 seem to indicate pretty clearly that in 
general they are following different sources. Moreover, the agreements 
in details are not sufficiently close to lead us to the conclusion that as 
with Luke 19:12-27 the source of Luke’s parable influenced Matthew’s 
presentation. Luke 15:3-7 is partly paralleled in Matt. 18:12-13, but 
vss. 3, 6, and the principal part of 5 have no parallel in Matthew, and 
there are notable differences in the rest. This, together with the fact 
that the differences in form are not all to be accounted for either by sty- 
listic changes or by the adapting of the parable to different uses, seems 
to indicate that the two forms were not derived from the same document. 


t Burton, A Short Introduction to the Gospels, p. 6. 
137 


10 HISTORICAL AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES 


As we approach the third group of passages, portions which, if known 
to Matthew, it seems he might easily have omitted, we may notice that 
there appear to be certain more or less well-defined principles according 
to which Matthew has omitted material that presumably lay before 
him in a source that he was using, the Gospel of Mark. Similar con- 
siderations, it would seem, would be likely to result in his omission of 
material from other documentary sources. Such principles, suggested 
by Hawkins in his Horae Synopticae' may be stated as follows: (1) “To 
omit or condense Mark’s subsidiary and pleonastic details’? (Hawkins, 
pp. 160, 125-31). (2) To omit or alter “passages [in Mark] seeming 
(a) to limit the power of Jesus Christ, or (6) to be otherwise derogatory 
to, or unworthy of, him” (Hawkins, pp. 117 ff.). (3) To omit or alter 
“passages [in Mark] seeming to disparage the attainments or character 
of the apostles’ (Hawkins, pp. 121 f., cf. p. 116). (4) To omit or alter 
“‘other passages [in Mark] which might cause offense or difficulty” 
(Hawkins, pp. 122 ff.). (5) To adapt the whole work “ΤΟΥ the purposes 
of catechetical or other teaching”? (Hawkins, pp. 218, 158 ff., 163-67). 
In this last other sources than Mark are in view. 

With these principles in mind we proceed to a notice of the portions 
in Luke’s Perean section which, if known to Matthew, he might easily 
have omitted. Luke 9:51-56 might well have been omitted by Matthew 
as not furthering his purpose, especially as (1) he shows no interest in 
the Samaritans, not mentioning them or their city except in a saying 
(10:5) forbidding the disciples to enter into a city of theirs; and (2) 
the culmination of this section is a rebuke of James and John the dis- 
ciples (apostles) by Jesus for a saying of theirs (principle 3). Cf. espe- 
cially Matt. 20:20, with Mark 10:35, where the request of James and 
John is transferred to their mother. Matthew might have omitted vs. 
51, which is separable from the rest, because he had its substance in 
Mark 10:1 and 32, which he used in Matt. 19:1 and 20:17-19. 

Luke 9:61-62 might have been omitted by Matthew as not, like the 
two preceding incidents and those among which he used them, well 
adapted to illustrate Jesus’ personal authority, and also as perhaps likely 
to cause difficulty (principle 4). 

As evidence that Matthew might easily have omitted Luke 10:17 
if it were in his source may be cited his omission of Mark 6: 12-13, which 
likewise stands at the end of material that he embodied in his mis- 
sionary discourse. The saying in 10:18 is bold and highly figurative, 
and Matthew might have omitted it as likely to cause difficulty, or at 


t 2d ed., Oxford, 1909. 
138 


THE SOURCES OF LUKE’S PEREAN SECTION 11 


any rate, not likely to be especially helpful to his readers (principles 
4 and 5). The same principles for a different reason might have led 
him to omit 10:19-20, for the phenomena there spoken of were probably 
not generally known at the time when Matthew was written." 

Though Matthew is not in general careful to avoid including two 
incidents similar to each other, his use of a partial parallel to Luke το: 
25-28 derived from Mark in 22:34-40 might have led him to omit it. 
We have already noticed the possible evidence that Matthew was there 
influenced by the language of this passage. 

Luke 10: 38-42 consists of a saying of Jesus and a narrative leading 
up to it, either of which is pointless without the other. That the saying 
early caused offense or difficulty in Christian circles seems evidenced by 
the change and omission found in quotations, early versions, and texts 
of it. The indication that Jesus preferred the hearing of his word to 
active ministry to his physical needs might seemingly have been thought 
somewhat dangerous to the Christian circle for which Matthew wrote. 
For notice Jas. 1:22: ‘Be ye doers of the word, and not hearers only,” 
and Paul’s urging of useful work on members of the Christian community :? 
“Tf any will not work, neither shall he eat’”’; “Work with your hands,” 
and especially the scene given by Matthew only, in 25:31-46, in which 
the eternal fate of those of ‘‘all the nations”’ is decided according to their 
ministry or lack of it to Christ in the person of his “brethren.” That is, 
Matthew might have feared the danger of his readers’ misinterpreting 
the saying, as it was actually misinterpreted, to mean that hearing Jesus’ 
word was the one thing needful (principle 4). The omission of the say- 
ing would carry with it that of the whole section. 

Luke 11:1 might easily have been omitted by Matthew as not espe- 
cially significant and not fitting into his plan of grouping the material 
into long ‘“‘discourses”’ (principle 5), even if he did not feel the hint of 
Jesus’ following John’s example undesirable (principle 26). 

Luke 11:5-8 might easily have been thought by Matthew to be not 
especially helpful. Neither of the characters in the parable is made 
attractive: it is the refusal of help by the friend that is the only speech 
quoted from him, and the act of the one asking is called ἀναιδία, “‘shame- 
lessness,” “impudence”’ (Thayer, s.v.). Such a parable might easily 
cause difficulty, as seeming not only to imply that Christians should 
bring impudent or shameless requests to God, but that God was in some 
way to be compared to a man who gives not from friendship but because 


t Cf. Sharman, The Teaching of Jesus about the Future, pp. 341 f. 
ὉΠ Thess. 3:10 ff. and I Thess. 4:11. 
139 


12 HISTORICAL AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES 


of the importunity of the one who asks. Many people today find diffi- 
culty rather than help in the parable for similar reasons. It may very 
well be, therefore, that Matthew had this parable in his source, and 
omitted it for some such reason. It might easily be felt to be opposed 
to the spirit of the insertion probably made by Matthew in 6:7 ὃ: 
‘“‘When ye pray use not vain repetitions as the heathen do; for they 
think they shall be heard for their much speaking; be not therefore like 
them; for your Father knows what things ye need before ye ask him” 
(principle 4). 

Luke 11:27-28 as a repudiation by Jesus of personal honor to him- 
self might have been somewhat distasteful to early Christians and so 
have been left out by Matthew from his gospel (principle 20). 

Luke 11:36 Matthew might easily have omitted as obscure and 
pleonastic, seeming to add nothing to the ideas already presented in vss. 
33-35 (principle 1). 

The introduction to the discourse against Pharisaism in Luke 11: 
347-304 would naturally fall out in Matthew’s use of the material, and 
as showing apparent courtesy to Jesus from a Pharisee would be little 
to his purpose. It seems to give a strange occasion for such words from 
Jesus as follow it, and would fit still less well the more extended denun- 
ciation given in Matt., chap 23. 

Luke 11:53-54 reminds us of Mark 12:13 and Matthew’s parallel, 
22:15. Matthew might have omitted it as included in the other pas- 
sage which he had shortly before used (principle τ). 

Matthew had taken from Mark (8:15) a parallel to the saying in 
Luke 12:1, in Matt. 16:6. Moreover, he had from Mark the notice 
of great crowds coming to Jesus and thronging him (Matt. 4:25; 12:15; 
13:2; and 19:2), and so would not need any of this verse (principle r). 

Luke 12:35-38 has a number of points of similarity with the parable 
of the Ten Virgins which Matthew has placed in connection with the 
two parables that follow in Luke in Matt. 25:1-13. Matthew might 
have omitted this passage because he had in the other from another 
source what he considered a better version of the same parable,‘ or else 
a better substitute. 

Luke 12:41-42a would not have fitted here in Matthew’s long dis- 
course, and so might have been omitted even if they were in his source. 
The omission of Mark 5:30 f. after Matt. 9:21 may also be considered 
in point (principle 1). 

Matthew seems to have inserted the last clause of 24:51 as a sub- 

τ So Sharman, of. cit., pp. 187-90, 195 f. 

140 


THE SOURCES OF LUKE’S PEREAN SECTION 13 


stitute for Luke 12:47-48, and perhaps omitted the latter because it 
seemed to him an anticlimax here and he found no other good place to 
insert it. 

That Matthew might have purposely omitted Luke 12:50 is seen 
to be probable in the light of his omission of the references to baptism 
in taking over Mark’s report as Matt. 20: 22—-23.1 

As the partial parallel to Luke 12:54-56 in Matt. 16: 2-3 is absent 
from the best manuscripts and other important textual witnesses, it can 
give us no assurance that this passage was known to the author of that 
gospel. But its omission had he known it is not difficult to account for, 
for it would not have been useful to him in the connection in which he 
has used the material either before or after it, and he might likely have 
found no other occasion to use it, especially as it is somewhat obscure 
and its helpfulness to Christians in Matthew’s time would seemingly not 
be very apparent (principle 5). 

_ Luke 12:57 could likewise easily have fallen out in Matthew’s trans- 
fer of the material that follows to a different context, its shortness and 
a quality of difficulty (principle 4) perhaps aiding in the result. 

Luke 13:10-17 might perhaps have been omitted by Matthew 
because he already had from Mark as many incidents of this kind as he 
wished to include, in the two Sabbath incidents from Mark 2:23—3:6 
(Matt. 12:1-14) and the healing of the woman twelve years with an issue 
of blood, Matt. 9: 20-22 from Mark 5: 25-34. 

Matthew might easily have omitted Luke 13:22, as he had its sub- 
stance from Mark (Matt. 9:35 from Mark 6:6, and Matt. 20:17 from 
Mark 10:32) and was not using the material to which it is an intro- 
duction. 

Matthew’s possession of the parallel sayings that he uses in 7:13-14 
and 22-23? and of the more complete parable of the Ten Virgins, all 
probably from another source, may well have led him to omit Luke 13: 
23-27. 

The incident of Luke 13: 31-33 hardly lends itself to the upbuilding 
process of Matthew, besides being opposed to his tendency to accentuate 
the hostility’ between the Pharisees and Jesus. The saying is rugged 
and obscure (principles 4 and 5). 

Matthew might omit Luke 14:1-6 for the same reason as Luke 13: 
to-17. Moreover, as in the incident just noticed the friendly relation 


τ Cf. Sharman, of. cit., pp. 44 and 203. 
2 See p. 9. 
3 See Sharman, of. cit., pp. 9 f. 

141 


14 HISTORICAL AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES 


with a Pharisee indicated in the first verse would hardly attract him. 
The partial parallels with Matt. 12:10-11 and 22:46¢ are incidental, 
and do not demand an immediate common source. 

Matthew might have considered that Luke 14:7—-10 would not be 
especially helpful to his readers. For as a rebuke to certain particular 
people it might have been very effective, but one would have to consider 
it ironical to get a high spiritual teaching from it, for on the face of it, 
it is an appeal to prudence for the attaining of worldly glory, the aim 
which in fact it is rebuking (principle 4). Matthew might well have 
been satisfied to take the concluding saying (vs. 11) and leave out the 
rest, especially as he probably found no very fitting place for it. 

Matthew might have omitted Luke 14:12-14 as a hard saying, 
likely, if taken too literally, to cause difficulty (principle 4). A similar 
motive may be surmised for the omission of the second clause of Luke 
6:30 from Matt 5:42, and for the changes from Luke 14: 26-27 in Matt. 
10: 37-38; 

In Matthew’s embodying of the following material in a long discourse 
the introduction in Luke 14:25 would drop out if it were in his source, 
but it may perhaps be questioned whether Matthew would have placed 
in the charge to the twelve apostles material presented in his source as 
addressed to ‘‘many crowds.” 

For Luke 14: 28-33 Matthew might easily have found no appropriate 
place, especially as the sayings are hard and for the most part as parables 
are not susceptible of the softening process apparent in Matthew’s form 
of the verses preceding (principle 4). 

Luke 16:1-8 gives a parable in which a shrewd man’s dishonest acts 
are held up as an example for emulation in some way. Its difficulty 
could thus easily have led Matthew to omit it, it would seem. Vs. 8 
especially seems to have been liable to misunderstanding which would 
make it say that Jesus commended the unrighteous steward (principle 
4). Vss. 9-12 seem to be sayings added as interpretative of the parable 
in various ways. They might have been omitted by Matthew as going 
with the parable and not especially valuable apart from it, and yet not 
sufficient to make the parable suitable for his purposes. 

On the supposition that Matthew had Luke 16: 27-31, he might have 
omitted it as not readily to be fitted with the rest of the Lazarus parable 
into his gospel (dealing as it does with a very different subject) and as 
not well adapted to use apart from it. 

Luke 17:5-6a might readily have dropped out through Matthew’s 
separate use of the material before and after it if it were in his source. 


142 


THE SOURCES OF LUKE’S PEREAN SECTION 15 


It would seem that Matthew might readily have omitted Luke 17: 
7-10 according to principle 4 or possibly principle 3. It seems to teach 
that the disciples, however faithful, can claim no reward and are to 
look for none. Moreover, the expression δοῦλοι ἀχρεῖοι, which the 
apostles (cf. vs. 5) are here told to apply to themselves, meaning good- 
for-nothing slaves, seems harsh and hard for them. In the only other 
use of the latter word in the New Testament Matthew gives the com- 
mand to cast out the ἀχρεῖον δοῦλον “into the outer darkness,’”’ where, 
he says, “shall be the weeping and the gnashing of teeth” (25:30). 
Moreover, there are a number of other passages in Matthew that promise 
reward to the faithful and punishment to others,' which taken with the 
one just cited seem to indicate an attitude of mind among a part of the 
early church to which Matthew belonged, which might easily make this 
section a source of considerable difficulty as seeming to call on the apostles 
and the most faithful to assert themselves worthy, not of reward, but of 
exclusion from the kingdom and of punishment in the age to come. 

Luke 17: 20-21 would seem to be opposed to Matthew’s idea of Jesus’ 
eschatological views, and so might easily have been omitted by him. 
The same is true of vs. 22, the contradiction here being to the idea of the 
speedy coming of the Son of man, reflected in Matt. 10:23; 24:34, 42, 
44; 25:13, and elsewhere. 

Matthew had from Mark a closer chronological datum than Luke 
17:25 for the events of this section, and apparently employed it in 
24:29-36, making Luke’s superfluous. The forecast itself of the suffer- 
ing and rejection of the Son of man Matthew had from Mark 8:31, and 
in strikingly similar language (Matt. 16:21) (principle 1). 

Luke 17:28-29 may have been omitted by Matthew on principle 1, 
as adding nothing material to vss. 26-27. Vs. 32 might easily have 
dropped out in Matthew’s separation of the material, as he omitted the 
preceding reference to Sodom, took the parallel to vs. 31 from Mark and 
continued to follow him for some space after, and put vs. 33 into another 
discourse, where vs. 32 would not have fitted with it. 

Luke 17:37a, ὃ, would easily drop out in any rearrangement of the 
material, and would be out of place with either of the adjacent sayings 
as Matthew has placed them. 

On principles 5 and 4 it would seem that Matthew might easily have 
omitted the parable part of Luke 18:1—-8, which presents a bad man, 
“fearing not God and regarding not man,” and his unjust action as indi- 
cating what God may be expected to do. Then the form of the part 

* Note Matt. 24:45-51; 22:11-14; 8:11-12; 13:40-43, 49-50. 

143 


10 HISTORICAL AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES 


after the parable is largely dependent on the parable, and would render 
the sayings unintelligible apart from it. Thus the whole might rather 
easily have been omitted by Matthew. 

Possibly Matthew might have omitted Luke 19:1-10, thinking that 
difficulty might be caused by Jesus’ declaring that salvation had come 
to this house without any express declaration of faith in him on the part 
of Zacchaeus. If he had wished to include it, it would seem that he 
could well have done so between 20:28 and 29, making a geographical 
connection as Luke has done and according to his principle? of rear- 
ranging incidents from Mark, or between 20:16 and 17, with both logical 
and geographical connection. The reasons discoverable for Matthew’s 
omission of it do not seem as cogent as with most of the portions from 
the Perean section that he has omitted. 

4. So far as their relation to Matthew’s use is concerned there would 
be little difficulty in considering that all the passages so far noted might 
have stood in a document used by Matthew. But there remains a fourth 
group, of portions concerning which it seems on the whole probable 
that, if Matthew had had them, he would have used them. 

The first of these is Luke 10: 30-37, the parable of the Good Samari- 
tan. That Matthew was jealous of the reputation of the priest and 
Levite seems improbable in view of his peculiarly strong presentation 
of the part of the high priests in the plot against Jesus (26:3, 57 ff., and 
chap. 27, especially vss. 3-10). If Matthew had for any reason disliked 
the giving of honor to a Samaritan, that word could simply have been 
omitted, with little impairment of the strong teaching of the parable. 
But just as it stands the parable is in line with Matthew’s teaching of the 
rejection of the Jewish leaders and nation (cf. Matt. 21:28-45). And 
the teaching of this parable seems such as would have fitted well into 
Matthew’s work, e.g., in the Sermon on the Mount, in connection with 
5:43-48, and its relation to Matt. 6: 1-4 on alms is surely as close as that 
of Matt. 6:7-15 is to 6:5-6 on prayer. It might also have been in- 
cluded in his series of passages from Luke’s Perean section in the latter 
part of the sermon, 6:19 ff., to the spirit and thought of which it is by 
no means unakin. Matthew’s “Golden Rule,” 7:12, finds a striking 
illustration init. It is true that no long parables are there included, but 
there are a number of shorter ones, and Matthew may have had no 
others that seemed to fit there particularly well. It could, moreover, 


t Sharman, op. cit., p. 9: “‘ Within those narrative portions of his documents where 
chronological or geographical data were absent or were vague, to group those events 
that were related through having a common geographical center.” 


144 


THE SOURCES OF LUKE’S PEREAN SECTION 17 


very appropriately have stood after 22:40, where Matthew has omitted 
Mark 12:32-34a. Its germaneness to Matthew’s thought is further 
confirmed by the use in two places by Matthew alone of the sentence, 
“1 desire mercy and not sacrifice,” which well expresses the teaching of 
the parable.t On the whole then it seems distinctly improbable that 
Matthew would have omitted it entirely from his gospel if it had stood 
in one of his principal or other sources. The fact that Matthew included 
so many parables (eight at least are found in Matthew alone) would 
further support this view. 

Luke 12:15-21, the parable of the Foolish Rich Man, forcefully 
emphasizes a truth otherwise presented in material that Matthew used 
in 6:19-21, 25-33, and that appears in Luke in the immediate context 
of this parable. It would seem that Matthew as well as Luke might 
have used it in that connection had it been present in his source, or he 
might have placed it between Matt. 19:22 and 23. If his document 
had the order of the material in Luke, this would be the first of the 
material on this subject to which he would come; and it seems rather 
probable that he would have used it had he found it there. 

While one might argue that the national outlook and anti-Zealot 
tone discoverable in Luke 12:54—13:9 shows that they must have stood 
together before the document came into Matthew’s hands, and Matthew 
pretty clearly had 12:58-s59, yet on that supposition it is hard to find 
a good reason for Matthew’s omission of 13:1-5. For the strong call 
to repentance is characteristic of Jesus as well as of John the Baptist 
according to Matthew (cf 4:17; 3:2, 7-8; 21:41; 22:7; 23:36). The 
parable of the Barren Fig Tree also, Luke 13:6-9, if it were applied 
especially to the Jewish nation, would be found in line with the parables 
used by Matthew in 21:28—22:13, though the indication of another 
chance being given would perhaps require for it a location earlier in the 
gospel, which might have been found after 12:38-45. If not so applied, 
it would teach the need of productiveness in Christians, which is 
brought out by Matthew in 3:8, τοῦ, and 7:16-20 under a somewhat 
similar figure though not in such circumstantial parabolic form. The 
slight similarity to the incident of the fig tree, 21:18-22, would hardly 
cause Matthew to omit it. 

That Matthew should have interpreted the parables in Luke 15: 
8-10 and 11-32, if he had them, as referring to the church and those 
outside seems improbable if the introduction in vss. 1-3 were then with 
them as the parable in vss. 4-7 doubtless must have been. Moreover, 


τ 80 Wernle, Synoptische Frage, 5. 95. 
145 


18 HISTORICAL AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES 


those passages in the Gospel of Matthew that show the strongest ecclesi- 
astical interest may well be considered to have been inserted by another 
hand than that of the author of the gospel; so that objection to the 
parables by him on the ground of such an interpretation is not seen to 
have been probable.t Both parables fit very well with the teaching 
reported by Matthew in 9:10-13, where a similar situation is presented 
to that reported in Luke τς: 1--2 which introduces them. It would seem 
that Matthew might very well have used them after this paragraph, 
especially as they would have furnished further examples of authori- 
tative teaching by Jesus, which Matthew here and elsewhere seems to 
have been especially concerned to present. Moreover the parable of 
the Prodigal Son might well, it seems, have been used by Matthew 
between 5:43-47 and 48, as it is a strong enforcement of the truth he 
there presented. It seems very hard to discover a motive for its entire 
omission by Matthew if he had it in his source. 

Luke 16:15 might seemingly have well been used by Matthew in the 
discourse against the Pharisees in chap. 23, in which vs. 12, from a source 
used in Luke’s Perean section, and vss. 27-28 are close to it in thought. 
The address of this verse to the Pharisees is recorded in Luke 16:14. 
If vs. 15 seemed obscure enough to cause difficulty to his readers, Mat- 
thew might have omitted it on that ground, but this seems hardly likely, 
and otherwise a probable reason for its omission if it were in his source 
does not appear. 

The main part of the parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus, i.e. 
Luke 16:19-26, from its similarities in thought and teaching with the 
judgment scene given in Matt. 25:31-46 and with the parable of the 
Unmerciful Servant as interpreted in Matt. 18:35, as well as with 
other characteristic expressions in Matthew,? might well, it seems, 
have been used by him if he had had it in his source. A place for it 
might have been found in chap. 18, either at the end or after vs. 9. 
The parable to vs. 26 is complete in itself, and the use of it without 
the remaining verses, if they were not wanted, would, it seems, have 
caused no difficulty. 

Why should Matthew have omitted Luke 17:11-19 if he had it? 
Prejudice against Samaritans could have been satisfied by the omission 
of the references to race without spoiling the narrative, as of a notable 
miracle which had an added lesson of the duty of thankfulness and the 


t See Sharman, op. cit., pp. 329 ff., 335-39, 356. 
2 E.g., ‘There shall be the weeping and the gnashing of teeth”; Matt. 8:12; 13:42, 
50; 22:13; 24:51; 25:39: 
146 


THE SOURCES OF LUKE’S PEREAN SECTION 19 


power of faith. None of these things seems foreign to Matthew’s 
thought. 

To be sure, Matthew had from Mark the account of the cure by 
Jesus of a single leper (8:1-4) who also was told to show himself to the 
priest, but Matthew in other cases includes narratives much more similar 
to one another than are those of the lepers.t. If Matthew was careful 
not to represent Jesus as opposing the Mosaic law,? no such opposition 
is indicated here. 

Incidents and ideas akin to those found in and suggested by this 
section are found in Matt. 8:10-13; 12:15-21; 12:41-45. And if a 
place is sought for this incident in Matthew, why should it not have 
followed 9:32-34, or if he wished to have only ten miracles there, have 
replaced it? That seems a repetition of material used elsewhere with 
no particular suitability to this place. Hawkins says of that miracle 
and the one preceding it that ‘‘the suggestion naturally occurs that 
Matthew inserted this anticipatory mention of them in order to make 
up the conventional number of ten miracles.” Our story here has ten 
men healed, and would have made a climax to the series of ten miracles 
had Matthew had it to use. 

Finally, it seems difficult to find a reason for Matthew’s omitting 
Luke 18:9-14 if it stood in his source. It is closely akin in thought with 
the parable and other teachings peculiar to Matthew in 21: 28-32, and 
its teaching is not unlike that of Matt. 9:11-13, taken from Mark 
2:16-17. It might seemingly have found a place after this latter, or 
possibly in the discourse on humility and forgiveness, Matt., chap. 18, 
or that against the Pharisees, Matt. 23:1-36, in which indeed the last 
sentence of this section is found (vs. 12), though probably taken rather 
from the source of Luke 14:11, where its connection is somewhat better. 

The facts then in regard to the material of Luke’s Perean section as 
regards its relation to use by Matthew make it appear distinctly prob- 
able that this material at one time existed in at least two separate bodies, 
one of which was known to Matthew and largely used by him in the com- 
position of his gospel, the other not known to him when he composed his 
gospel, and therefore not used by him init. The facts thus far adduced 
may not amount to proof of such distinctness of sources behind Luke’s 
Perean section. But the argument for this is also cumulative. And 
further evidence supporting it from the inner characteristics of the sections 
themselves is to be presented in the following chapter. 

t Cf. 9:27-31 with 20: 30-34, and 9:32-34 with 12:22-24. 

2 But cf. Matt. 5:38 ff. 

147 


CHAPTER II 


INNER EVIDENCE FOR DISTINCTNESS OF SOURCES BEHIND 
LUKE’S PEREAN SECTION 


The previous chapter, dealing with a matter going outside of the 
material as it stands in Luke, namely its relation to use in another gos- 
Ipel, has resulted in the suggestion that two distinct and separate sources 
ay behind the material now found in Luke’s Perean section. The task 
of the present chapter is to present evidence from within the material 
itself that tends to confirm this probability. 

The looseness of connection and lack of orderly arrangement that 
appear in many places throughout this section have long ago been 
noticed.t We can hardly consider it probable that the arrangement of 
its material is governed in detail by the time or place of the incidents 
and teachings. For indications both of time and place are exceedingly 
scanty, only one place indeed being mentioned by name as the scene 
of an incident or saying, Jericho, 19:1, the phrase ‘‘a certain place,” ‘‘a 
certain village’? being repeatedly used, and indications of time being 
equally scanty and indefinite.2 Moreover, Sharman has pointed out? the 
difficulty of finding a relationship in thought between the portions Luke 
11:22 6; 12:10; Ὑ2ῚΤΙ 12; 12:57-59; 12:18 21; 14:34-25 ΤΠ ΠΠ᾿ 
16:18; 17:7-10 and the material which precedes or follows each of 
these. 

Now it may be noticed that in a considerable number of cases there 
appears to be a closer connection in thought between passages in this 
section now separated by intervening material than exists between these 
passages and their more immediate context. Thus 10:2~-16 is closely 
connected with 10:21-22 by the thought of those who receive and those 
who fail to receive Jesus’ message. Vs. 17 is indeed connected with 
10:1, but the ideas presented in vss. 18-20 seem widely separated from 
those of the sections on each side of them. Again 10:21-24 and 38-42 


t So Friedrich Bleek, Einleitung in das N.T., 1862. English ed., 1869, p. 279: 
“Want of due connection and arrangement is very apparent in that long section 
peculiar to Luke, chaps. 9:51—18:14.” 

2 Cf. Sharman, op. cit., pp. 3 ἴ.; Michaelis—Marsh, Einleitung in die Schriften des 
Neuen Bundes, 2 Aufl., 1803, III, 1, S. 39; Priestley, Harmony of the Evangelists, 
Ρ. 95; Burton and Mathews, Life of Christ, p. 176. 

3 Op. cit., p. 4. 

20 [148 


THE SOURCES OF LUKE’S PEREAN SECTION 21 


are closely connected by the idea of the importance of receiving what 
Jesus has to reveal, the word “‘hear”’ (vss. 24 and 39) serving also as a 
verbal connection. Nothing like so close a connection appears between 
either portion and the intervening material. But close connection may 
be found between that material, 10: 25-37, and another isolated section, 
17:12-19, Jesus in the latter carrying out his teaching in the former by 
a notable act of mercy to the unfortunate, a verbal connection appearing 
in vss. 37 and 13 (“mercy”’), and the one held up for emulation in each 
case being a Samaritan. The passages 12:4-12 and 22 ff. are closely 
connected as encouragements to confidence in God and devotion to his 
work. ‘There is verbal connection in “‘be not anxious,” vss. 11, 22, etc. 
The intervening passage interrupts this course of thought, though it has 
a connection with 12:22 ff. The requirements of humility and renun- 
ciation found in 14:7—11 and 25-35 seem to connect these passages some- 
what more closely than either is connected with the intervening material 
if we ignore the (probably editorial) first clause of vs. 12. 
aL Ἢ thought of rejection of the chosen ones and bringing-in of the 
unfortunate in 14:16-24 is closely connected with that of chap. 15, 
God’s special joy at the finding of the lost, especially as introduced by 
the murmuring of the Pharisees and scribes. Moreover, the parable 
of 14:16-24 appears better suited to attract ‘‘the publicans and sinners,” 
15:1, than what intervenes, which appears like a decided interrruption. 
The tone of strenuous requirement for discipleship found in 14: 25— 
35 reappears decidedly in 16:13, but to a considerable extent the idea 
is found also in the entire section 16:1-13, the connection with either 
being considerably closer than of any of them with chap. 15. But 16: 
14-15 seems more closely connected with chapter 15 than either is with 
the intervening section, especially if we may regard it as probable that 
the phrase ‘“‘being lovers of money” is due to an editor! The thought 
of uncompromising requirements for the member of the new order is 
continued from 16:1~-13 in vss. 16-17, the connections with vss. 14-15 
seeming less close except perhaps for the (possibly editorial) reference 
to money connecting 14 with 1-13. Moreover, 16:14-15 seems an excel- 
lent introduction for 16:19-31, the contrast between human and divine 
estimates of worth being strong in each. Neither seems to be at all 
closely connected with what comes between. Luke 17:1-2 may be 
considered as connected with 16:18 as a warning as to offense particularly 


τ Of the two Greek words in this phrase φιλάργυρος appears in the New Testament 
only here and once in I Tim., and ὑπάρχω is listed by Hawkins as especially character- 
istic of Luke. 


149 


22 HISTORICAL AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES 


in matters of divorce and marriage. In any case both portions seem 
to indicate requirements of the disciple, and to be more nearly allied to 
each other than either is with the intervening parable, which has no 
obvious connection with either. Finally, the promise of vindication of 
the faithful ones and punishment of adversaries at the coming of the Lord 
closely connects Luke 18:1-8 and 19:12-27, much more closely than 
either is connected with its more immediate context. 

The mere fact that in such a large number of cases coherence would 
be improved by the putting-together of portions now separated tends to 
strengthen the argument for the existence of more than one document 
behind this section, though one might conceive it to be the result of a 
rearrangement or disarrangement of material from a single source. But 
the evidence for the first supposition is made more clear and greatly 
strengthened by noting that from the passages we have just been con- 
sidering two coherent groups appear. Thus, rearranging the order of 
our list, we have noted the close connection of (1) 14:7-11 with 14: 
25-35; of 14:25-35 with 16:1-13; of 16:1-13 with 16:16-17; of 16: 
16-18 with 17:1-2; and of (2) 14:16-24 with 15:1-32; of 15:1-32 with 
16:14-15; of 16:14-15 with 16:19-31. It will be noticed that the 
passages of list (2) in every case fit between those of list (1), alternating 
with them in the present arrangement in Luke. This looks very much 
as though material from two documents had been here put together 
by taking a portion alternately from each, preserving the order of the 
original documents. 

Moreover, we may now extend the second of these lists by noting 
the close connection between 16: 19-31 and 10:25-37, which leads to our 
first and only suggestion of a change in order in the process of combining 
documents. The former passage ends with a presentation of the thought 
that the instructions of the Old Testament Scriptures should be amply 
sufficient to prevent a life that leads to torment after death, while the 
latter, beginning with a question as to what to do to inherit eternal life, 
answers it by reference to the Old Testament Scriptures and the assertion 
that obedience to their instructions will bring life, and then illustrates 
the meaning of such obedience. The lawyer of 10:25 might readily have 
been found among the group of 15:2-3, some of whom are apparently 
mentioned again in 16:14. If then we place the passage 10: 25-37 after 
16: 19-31, at the end of our list (2), we may add to it still another passage 
besides, 17: 12-19, the close connection of which with 10:25-37 we have 
already noted. These facts point to the supposition that in the combin- 
ing of material from two documents the order of one was not completely 


150 


THE SOURCES OF LUKE’S PEREAN SECTION 23 


adhered to, but one portion of it was selected out and placed before 
others that had originally preceded it. This is only what one might 
expect would be done in such a combination. 

As to the group of list (1) we may also suspect that there belonged 
with it the shorter coherent group, 10:2-16, 21-24, and 38-42, when 
we observe that the chief interruption in it is by material assigned to the 
group of list (2), 10: 25-37. 

We have thus by the study of coherence alone established appar- 
ently a considerable probability that at some point in the history of the 
body of material we now call Luke’s Perean section portions from two 
documents were put together, those from one being inserted between those 
of the other, and the order of both being largely, but of one not entirely, 
retained. We have also thus determined the likelihood that in general 
there belonged to one of these documents (1) the material found in Luke 
τῷ 21 24, 38-42; 14:7-11, 25-35; 16:1-13, 16-18; 17:1-2, and 
to the other (2) that of 10:25-37; 14:16-24; 15:1-32; 16:14-15, 10-31 
17:12-10. 

It may be instructive to compare these results with those of our 
first chapter, so far as they concern these particular passages. Of the 
list (1) given above we find that there was assigned to group (1), of pas- 
sages ‘“‘in which the similarity of Matthew and Luke is so close that the 
use of a common source may be said to be almost self-evident,” 10: 2-3, 
12-15, 21-24; 14:11; 16:13; 17:1; to group (2a), of passages “less 
closely paralleled in Matthew” but “which we may consider as from 
a common source,” 10:4-11, 16; 14:26-27; 14:34-35(?); 16:16-18; 
17:2; to group (3), of passages which, if known to Matthew, he might 
easily have omitted, 10:38-42; 14:7—-10, 25(?), 28-33; 16:1-12. To 
groups (2b) and (4) nothing of the material in list (1) was assigned. 
Taking now the list (2) given above we find that of its material there was 
assigned in chap. i to group (20), of passages partially paralleled in Mat- 
thew but which we decided probably came to Matthew and Luke from 
different sources, 10:25-29; 14:16-24; 15:3-7; and to group (4), of 
“portions which it seems probable Matthew would have used if he had 
had them,” 10:30-37; 15:8-32; 16:15, 19-26; 17:12-19. That is, we 
find that the passages indicated by coherence to have belonged to one of 
the documents are found without exception in those groups which we 
concluded indicate a body of material known to and largely used by 
Matthew.t While of the passages indicated by coherence to have 
belonged to the other document, most of the material, fifty verses, is 

or tO: 

151 


24 HISTORICAL AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES 


found in the group which we considered as indicating another body of 
material not known to Matthew,' and all but eight verses of the rest, 
that is, nineteen verses, in that group concerning which we considered 
that different sources lay behind the material in Matthew and Luke. 
The eight other verses are 15:1-2 and 16:14, 27-31, for none of which 
is there any evidence for believing that it was used by Matthew. A 
more complete correspondence of the two lines of evidence one could 
hardly hope to find. 

Proceeding now in our study of inner characteristics we turn to the 
matter of vocabulary. For the study of this we select two groups of 
material somewhat larger than those we have just seen to be indicated 
by the facts of coherence and relation to Matthew’s use to be derived 
from different documents, but including the greater part of one and 
almost all of the other respectively. The first group includes the material 
in Luke’s Perean section that has close parallel in Matthew only, and is 
substantially equal to the sum of groups (1) and (2a) in chap. i. For 
convenience of reference it may be arranged in sections thus: §1, 9:57—60; 
§2, 10:2-16a; §3, 10:21-24; §4, 11:2-4; §5, 11:9-13; §6, 11:14, τό- 
17b, 18b, 19-20, 23-26; §7, 11:29-32; §8, 11:33-35; §9, 11:30, 42-523 
§ ro, 12:2-10; §11, 12:22b-31, 33-34; §12, 12:39-40, 42b-46; §13, 12: 
51-53; §14, 12:58-59; §15, 13:18-21; §16, 13:28-29; §17, 13:34-35; 
§318, 14:11; §19, 14:26-27; §20, 16:13; §21, 16:16-17; §22, 16:185 §23, 
07:1; §24,17:3-4; §25, 17:6; $26, 17:23-24, 26-27, 30; 33<3haaee 
The second group includes besides almost? the whole of the list (2) of 
portions indicated by coherence and relation to Matthew’s use as coming 
from a separate document, four others connected with them in thought,3 
and all but one of them‘ belonging to the fourth group of the first chapter, 
and thus indicated as from a source Matthew did not have. This second 
group may be arranged as follows:. §1, Luke 12:13-20; §2, 13:1-9; 
§3,14:16-24; §4, 15:1-32; §5, 16:15, 19-31; §6, 10:30-37; §7,17:12- 
19; §8, 18:9-14a; §9, 19:1-I0. 

In each of these groups we find a very considerable number of words, 
τος in one and 76 in the other, which occur in more than one of its sec- 
tions and at least twice as many times in it as in the other group of mate- 


SPT: 


2 There are omitted from it only 10:25-29, concerning which one might doubt 
if it were unknown to Matthew, and 16:14, perhaps largely an editorial insertion. 


3 See pp. 44f. 
41Q:1-10; see p. τό. 


152 


THE SOURCES OF LUKE’S PEREAN SECTION 25 


rial, in many cases not occurring at all there. A list of these words for 
each group follows, with the number of times and the number of different 
sections in which each occurs in each group of material. The figures 
are given in this order after each word: (1) the number of occurrences 
of the word in the group noted at the beginning of the list; (2) the num- 
ber of different sections in which it occurs in that group; (3) the number 
of its occurrences in the other group; and (4) the number of sections, if 
any, in which it occurs in the other group. 


FIRST GROUP 


ἀγαπάω, 2, 2: 0; ἅγιος, 3, 3: 0; av, 10,6: 2, 2; ἀντί, 2, 2: 0; ἀπέρχο- 
μαι, 4, 2: 1, 1; ἀποκτείνω, 6, 3: 1,1; ἀποστέλλω, 3, 3: τ, τ; dpa, 3, 3: ο; 
αὐξάνω, 2,2: ο; ἀφώημι, 11, 7: 2,2; βαλλάντιον, 2,2: 0; βασιλεία, 12,8: 0; 
Βασταζω; 2,2: 0; βλέπω, 4, 2: 0; γαμέω; 3,2: 1,1; γάρ, 12, 10: 4, 3) 
yeved, 7,2:03 Y0,4,4: 1,1; γινώσκω, 5,4: 1,1; δάκτυλος, 2,2: 1,1; 
διά, 5, 4: 1, 1; διαμερίζω, 3, 2: 0; διαφέρω, 2, 2: 0; διώκω, 2, 2: 0; δύνα- 
ΠΟ 263; 3: δύο ὃ; 42.3, 33 ἐμοῦ; 4, 2:°2, 2; ἡμῖν, 4, 22 Ὁ; εἰ, 13, 0: 
4,4; εἰ μή, 4, 3: 2, 2; οἶδα, 5, 5: 0; εἰρήνη, 4, 2: 0; ἐκβάλλω, 6, 3: 1,1; 
ἐκεῖ, 6,5: 2,2; ἔμπροσθεν, 3,2: 1,1; ἐπισυνάγω, 2, 2: 0; ἐσθίω, 6, 4: 2, 2; 
ἔσχατος, 2) 2: QO; ἕτερος, 7; 5: 3) 2; ἕως, 6, 5: 3) 2; ἥκω, 2, 2: I, I; ἡμέρα, 
8,5: 2,2; θεῦς, 18, 10: 8, 5; καθώς, 2, 2: 0; καρδία, 2, 2: 1,1; “κεφαλή, 
2, 2: Ὁ; κλέπτης, 2, 2: Ο; KOKKOS, 2, 2: Ο; κόσμος, 2, 2: Ο; κρίσις, 4, 3: 0; 
κριτής, 3) 2: I, I; λαλέω, 2, 2: 0; λαμβάνω, 4, 2: QO; μαθητής, 4, 2: Ο; 
μακάριος, 2, 2: Ο; μᾶλλον, 3, 2: 0; μέν, 2, 2: 1,1; μή, 28, 14: 4, 2; μηδέ, 
ΠΣ τ 2; μήτηρ, 3,2: 0; μισεῶ, 2,2: 0; wal, 3,3: ὃ; νότος, 2, 2: 0; 
viv, 2, 2: 1,1; ὅλος, 2, 2: 0; ὅπου, 4, 3: 0; ὅς, 7, ὅ, 21,9: 9, 5; ὅταν, 4, 
οὕτως, 6,5: 1,1; παραδίδωμι, 2, 2: 0; παραλαμβάνω, 3, 2: 0; παρέρχομαι, 
2,2: 1,1; πετεινόν, 3,3: 0; πίνω, 4,4: 1,1; πλείων, 3,2: 0; πλήν, 4, 3: O; 
πνεῦμα, 5, 4: Ο; πονηρῦς, 4, 4: 0; πόσος, 3, 2: 1, 1; προφήτης, 7, 5: 2, 1; 
πρῶτον͵ 2,2: 0; πωλέω, 2, 2: 0; πῶς, 2, 2: 0; σημεῖον, 5,2: 0; otvame,? 
2,2: 0; Σολομών, 3, 2: 0; σοφία, 2, 2: 0; ὑμεῖς, 7,5: I, 1; ὑμῶν, τὸ; 7: 
3, 2; ὑμῖν, 30, 11: 6, 4; ὑμᾶς, 8, 4: 2,2; σῶμα, 7, 4: 0; ταμεῖον, 2, 2: 0; 
Te, 2,2: 1,1; τίθημι, 2,2: Ο; τότε, 3, 2: 1,1; ὑπάγω, 2,2: 1,1; ὑπό 
5,4: 1, 1; ὑψύω, 3, 2: 0; Φῶς; 3, 2: ὁ; ὥρα, 4, 2: I, I. 


᾽ 


t These figures include those of εἰ μή below. 


?Not classical; in the New Testament occurs only here, in the parallels in 
Matthew, and once in Mark. 


153 


20 HISTORICAL AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES 


SECOND GROUP 


᾿Αβραάμ, 7,2: 1,1; ἀγαθά (ra),* 3, 2: 0; ἀγρός, 3, 2: 1,1; ἀδελφός, 
4, 3: 2,2; ἁμαρτωλός, 7, 4: 0; dvaBaivw, 2,2: 0; ἀνίστημι, 5, 3: I, 1; 
ἀπαγγέλλω, 2, 2: 0; ἀποδίδωμι, 2, 2: 1,1; ἀποκρίνομαι, 4, 3: 1,1; ἀπο- 
AapBdvw, 2,2: Ὁ; ἀπόλλυμι, II, 3: 4, 2; δεῖ, 2,2: 1,1; δέκα, 4, 3: 0; 
diayoyyilw,? 2, 2: 0; δικαιόω, 2, 2: 0; δίκαιος, 2, 2: 0; δοῦλος, 6, 2: 3, 1; 
s ; ay : πὶ : Rs ae 
με, 8,6: 3,3; «lov, ΤΙ, 5: 3,2; εἶπον, 41, IO: 19, 12; ἐλεεῶ, 2, 2: Ὁ: 
ἐννέα, 3, 2: 0; ἐπαίρω, 2,2: 0; ἐπιθυμέω,3 2, 2: 0; ἐπιτίθημι, 2, 2: 0; 
ἐρώτάω, 3,2: Ο; ert, 2,2: I, Τὶ; ἔτος, 4, 1: Ὁ; εὑρίσκω, ΤΊ, τ 5) oe 
ppaivo,4 6, 3: ο; εὐχαριστέω, 2,2: O; ἔχω, 12, 5: 5, 3; ζωή, 2,2: O, 
Ἱερειχώ, 2, 2: 0; ἱερεύς, 2.2: 0; Ἰησοῦς, 7,3: 1,1; ἵνα, 7,5: 2,2; ἵστημι, 
3,3: 1,1; καλέω, 5, 2: 0; καρπόν, 4, 2: 0; καταβαίνω, 5, 3: I, 1; μακρό- 
θεν, 2, 2: 0; μέγας, 3, 3: 0; μέλλω, 2, 2: 0; νεκρός, 4, 2: 2,1; δμοίως, 
4,3: 0; Spdw, 2,2: 1,1; ὀργίζομαι," 2, 2: 0; ὅστις, 3, 3: 1,1; odxé, 
, [4 Ὃ 
4,3: 2,2; παρά, 5,4: 2,2; παραβολή, 4, 4: 0; παραιτέομαι͵ 3, 2: 0; 
παρακαλέω, 2, 2: Ο; πείθω, 2, 2: 0; πέμπω, 3, 2: Ο; περισσεύω, 2, 2: Ο; 
πίπτω, 3,3: 1,1; πλούσιος, 5,3: 0; ποιέω, 8,5: 4,4; πορεύομαι, 8,5: 1,1; 
ποῦ, 2, 2: 1,1; ποῦς, 2, 2: ἘΞ 1; πρῶτος, 2, 2: 1, 1; πτωχός 4, τὶ Ὁ 
Σαμαρείτης, 2, 2: 0; σπλαγχνίζομαι, 2,2: 0; συνάγω, 3,2: 1,1; σώζω, 
2,2: 0; τελώνης, 4, 2: Ὁ; Tes (indef.), 17, 8: 4. 4; τύπος! 4,4: I, 1; 
’ , ’ 
χαίρω, 3, 2: 0; χορτάζω, 2, 2: 0; χώρα, 4, 2: ο. 


The number and extent of distribution of these words in the two 
groups of material seem to give further confirmation to the hypothesis 
that in these groups two different documents are represented. 

Moreover, it appears that to a certain extent different words were 
prevailingly employed in the two groups to express the same or similar 
ideas. Thus for the verb of sending the first uses ἀποστέλλω in three 
sections, the second group only once but πέμπω instead, three times in 
two sections, the first group not having this at all. In the verbs of seeing 
used a marked difference appears. In the second group εἶδον is used 
prevailingly, eleven times, as against three times in the first group, and 
dpa twice in two sections as against once in the first group; ἀναβλέπω 
appears once, in the second group. But in the first group βλέπω, which 


τ Meaning “property,” only here in the New Testament. 
2 Only here in the New Testament. 
3 ἐπιθυμέω χορτασθήναι bis, only here in the New Testament. 
4 Only here in the Gospels. 
5 Only here in Luke or Acts. 
154 


THE SOURCES OF LUKE’S PEREAN SECTION PH 


does not appear at all in the second group, is the most frequent, being 
used four times in two sections. Verbs of speaking and reporting also 
show a considerable difference in the two groups. In the first group 
λέγω is the one prevailingly used, occurring twenty-five times (in 17 sec- 
tions), while εἶπον occurs nineteen times (in 12 sections). λΛαλέω is used 
in two sections, not at all in the second group. The second group uses 
εἶπον prevailingly, forty-one times (in τὸ sections), as against eighteen 
occurrences of λέγω (in 8 sections). It uses ἀπαγγέλλω twice, which 
does not occur in the first group. Verbs of going also show differences 
in the two. The first group uses ὑπάγω and παρέρχομαι each twice, and 
ἀπέρχομαι four times, to the second group’s once. While the second 
group uses πορεύομαι eight times (in 5 sections), καταβαίνω five times, 
and ἀναβαίνω twice, the first group having the first two each once and 
the last not at all. Further, of the synonymous verbs συνάγω and ἐπισυν- 
ἄγω the second is found only in the first group of material, twice in two 
sections; and the first, three times in two sections of the second group 
and only once in the first. The satisfying of hunger is expressed twice 
in two sections of the second group by the passive of xoprafw. This 
verb is not used in the first group, but ἐσθίω appears six times in four 
of its sections as against two occurrences in the second group of material. 
Finally, we may note the contrasting uses of the largely equivalent 
adverbs οὕτως and ὁμοίως. The first group uses οὕτως six times in five 
sections, ὁμοίως not at all; while the second group uses ὁμοίως four 
times in three sections and οὕτως only once. These facts still further 
confirm the hypothesis of the existence of two sources behind Luke’s 
Perean section. 

Notable differences between the same two groups of material are 
also to be found in matters of literary form. We may notice first the 
methods of tying together sentences. In the first group we find 147 
sentences, in Westcott and Hort’s text. Of these, 22, less than 15 per 
cent, are introduced by καί, 35, or less than 24 per cent, are introduced 
by δέ; 40, more than 27 per cent, are introduced by other particles, 
while 50, or more than 34 per cent, are introduced by no connective 
particle or device. But in the second group, of the 115 sentences 38, or 
more than 33 per cent, are introduced by καί, 50, or more than 43 per 
cent, by δέ; 11, less than 10 per cent, by other particles; and only τό, 
less than 14 per cent, are without a connective particle or device. Thus 
while in the second group of material καί is more than twice as frequent 
for sentence connection as in the first and δέ nearly twice as frequent, 
introduction by other particles is nearly three times as frequent in the 


155 


28 HISTORICAL AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES 


first group as in the second, and the absence of any connective much 
more than twice as frequent. 

We may next observe that almost throughout the first group, in 
every section indeed and almost in every verse, is to be found a parallel- 
ism in the form or thought or both. In the variety of its forms it is 
similar to Hebrew poetry. In part it consists of (1) the restatement of a 
thought or (2) the statement of a similar thought or (3) the statement of 
its converse or (4) of a contrasted thought. For example: (1) ‘Unto 
what is the kingdom of God like? and whereunto shall I liken it?” 
13:18; (2) “The foxes have holes, and the birds of the heaven nests,” 
9:58; (3) “For every one that exalteth himself shall be humbled; and 
he that humbleth himself shall be exalted,’ 14:11; and (4) ‘The harvest 
indeed is plenteous, but the laborers are few,” 10:2. With this parallel- 
ism of thought goes in almost every case some parallelism of form. This 
may consist in the use of similar grammatical forms in corresponding 
places in two or more neighboring clauses. So in 11:2: 


ε , Ν ΜΝ ,ὔ 
ἁγιασθήτω τὸ ὄνομά σου" 
ἐλθάτω ἡ βασιλεία σου" 


and in I1:g-I0: 

5 -“ Ν 4 ΡΣ" 
αἰτεῖτε, καὶ δοθήσεται ὑμῖν" 
ζητεῖτε, καὶ εὑρήσετε" 
κρούετε, καὶ ἀνοιγήσεται ὑμῖν" 

“ Ν ε - ΡΩΝ οἱ , 
πᾶς yap ὃ αἰτῶν λαμβάνει, 

καὶ ὃ ζητῶν εὑρίσκει, 


Ν ~ / 
καὶ τῷ κρούοντι ἀνοιγήσεται. 


Or it may involve the use of the same words, in the same or different 
forms, as in 17:34-35: 


μι, ’, SN ΄ A 
ἔσονται δύο ἐπὶ κλίνης μιᾶς, 

ὃ εἷς παραλημφθήσεται καὶ ὃ ἕτερος ἀφεθήσεται " 
μ᾿ , 3\./ ΒΕ, ἃς Ν Sik 
ἔσονται δύο ἀλήθουσαι ἐπὶ τὸ αὐτό, 

ἡ μία παραλημφθήσεται ἣ δὲ ἑτέρα ἀφεθήσεται. 


Of as In ΜΕΤ: 
ε ε 


“ A a ε XQ ΄ 
οτι πας ὁ ὑψῶν εαυτον ταπεινωθήσεται 


Ν ε an ε Ν ε 4 
καὶ ὃ ταπεινῶν ἑαυτὸν ὑψωθήσεται. 


Even in a passage that seems at first to lack anything of the kind a sort 
of parallelism in the arrangement of thought may be found: 
156 


THE SOURCES OF LUKE’S PEREAN SECTION 29 


The unclean spirit when he is gone out of the man 
Passeth through waterless places seeking rest, 
And finding none, he saith, 

I will turn back unto my house whence I came out. 


And when he is come, he findeth it swept and garnished. 
Then goeth he and taketh to him seven other spirits more evil 
than himself; 
And they enter in and dwell there: 
And the last state of that man becometh worse than the first [11: 
24-26]. 


When we search the material of the second group, however, for any 
such parallelism it appears to be remarkably scanty. Repetition of the 
same or similar clauses and expressions in different contexts we do find, 
as in 13:2-5, 6-7; 14:18-20, 21-23; 15:3-10, and in a few places a 
balancing of thought which somewhat suggests the characteristic method 
of expression in the first group (16:25, 26; 18:12). But in none of these 
last is there close parallelism of form, and in 16:25 there is none at all. 
And the repetition is not as in the first group in adjacent or nearly adja- 
cent clauses. In many places there seems to be an avoidance of any 
close parallelism in expression. Thus a decided variety is found in the 
relating of the three similar occurrences in 10:31-33, and the treatment 
of contrasts in 18:9-14a and 17:17-18 seems remarkably free from 
parallelism. Note the Greek of the latter: Οὐχ οἱ δέκα ἐκαθαρίσθησαν; 
οἱ [δὲ] ἐννέα ποῦ; οὐχ εὑρέθησαν ὑποστρέψαντες δοῦναι δόξαν τῷ θεῷ εἰ μὴ ὁ 
ἀλλογενὴς οὗτος: Much more parallelism might have been expected here 
in view of sayings like 10:41-42. Thus a further notable contrast is 
found in the literary structure of the two groups of passages. 

There are still others, which involve the general form of the material. 
While the number of parables in the two groups is about the same, eleven 
in the first and nine in the second, those in the second group are in gen- 
eral so much longer that they comprise 683 out of the total of 933 verses, 
considerably more than two-thirds of the whole, while those of the first 
group cover only 22 out of approximately 118 verses, or less than one- 
fifth of the total number. Moreover, of the eleven parables of the first 
group all but three are in effect statements of general laws or customs 
of human action or the course of nature rather than narrations of par- 
ticular actions. But the parables of the second group are without 
exception narratives, not mere detached facts or even incidents used 
for comparison. In only two cases, 15:4 and 8, does the use of the ques- 


157 


90 HISTORICAL AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES 


tion form in the opening part suggest that a custom of human action is 
being there presented. Another feature which distinguishes the parables 
of the second group from those of the first is that in every case these 
possess an introduction, conversational or narrative in the case of all 
but one, and in that (18:9-14a@) interpretative. The only case at all 
similar in the first group is that of 11:17, for which vss. 14, 16-17a@ may 
perhaps be considered a narrative introduction, though the parable is 
but the beginning of an extended discourse all introduced by those verses. 
The parable of 12:42 ff. is given as in response to a question given in vs. 
41, not paralleled in Matthew. Otherwise the parables of the first 
group of material, while they often illustrate a preceding saying, may 
be said to be entirely without narrative, conversational, or interpretative 
introductions. 

A further contrast between the two groups of material is to be found 
in the prevailing length of the natural divisions according to thought. 
While it would be unnecessary, as well as somewhat difficult, to state 
this contrast accurately in detail, it may be indicated by the difference 
in length of the parables in the two, those of the first averaging only two 
verses apiece, and those of the second over seven and a half verses; and 
also roughly by the fact that after dividing the material into sections 
according to subject-matter (see p. 24) the average length of a section 
in the first group is found to be about four and a half verses, while that 
in the second group is nearly ten and a half. 

The marked differences we have found in the literary characteristics 
of the two groups of material that we are considering tend strongly 
further to confirm the hypothesis of two sources lying behind Luke’s 
Perean section. 

Still further confirmation of this view is to be found in the facts which 
indicate different points of view in the two groups of material. Wemay 
first notice the geographical point of view. In the material of the first 
group indications of place are scanty, but the fact that Jerusalem and the 
sanctuary, though mentioned, are spoken of only as places of the rejection 
and slaying of God’s messengers (11:51 and 13:34) seems to point away 
from that city for the place of origin of the collection. The other geo- 
graphical references seem to give support to this indication, for the only 
other cities or towns named as places where Jesus had worked are three 
in Galilee (10:13, 15), and the only other places named at all are the 
heathen cities Sodom (10:12), Tyre, Sidon (10:13, 14), and Nineveh 
(11:30, 32), the last being spoken of as having repented at Jonah’s 
preaching. We may also notice here as perhaps pointing in the same 


158 


THE SOURCES OF LUKE’S PEREAN SECTION 91 


direction that while Moses is not mentioned and Abraham is referred to 
only once (13:28), Abel (11:51) and Noah (17:26, 27), men not specifi- 
cally of Jewish race but of the larger human family, appear as types of 
righteous men, Solomon, a character likely to have an appeal outside of 
Palestine and to others than Jews, appears in two passages (11:31 and 
12:27), and Jonah, the great Old Testament foreign missionary, is pre- 
sented in 11: 29-30 and 32 as the successful preacher of repentance to the 
men of Nineveh, and a prototype of Christ himself. Nothing here sug- 
gests a Jerusalem origin, and the apparent adaptation to use in missions 
outside of Palestine and to gentiles confirms the indication of the refer- 
ences to places that this group of material did not originate in or near 
the Jewish capital. 

On the other hand in the material of the second group the eight 
references to particular localities with possibly one unimportant excep- 
tion are all either to some part of Jerusalem, to the city itself, or to some 
place not far from it. Jerusalem is mentioned by name in two sections: 
in the parable of the Good Samaritan (10:30) as the starting-point of the 
man who was robbed, and in the discourse on repentance (13:4) as a 
dwelling-place of men who must repent or perish. The latter mention is 
connected with mention of an accident, assumed as known to the hear- 
ers, in which eighteen men were killed by a falling tower in Siloam, which 
it seems to be assumed the hearers know as a place in Jerusalem (13:4). 
Just before this (13:1-2) Galileans are mentioned, but as they are men- 
tioned as being killed while offering sacrifices it is evident that the 
thought about them centers in the temple at Jerusalem. Again in the 
parable of the Pharisee and the Publican it is the temple, of course at 
Jerusalem, though the city is not mentioned in the context, that is made 
their place of prayer. Jericho, only a little over seventeen miles from 
Jerusalem, is the only other definite place that is mentioned save for 
the road connecting it with Jerusalem, the scene of the robbery and its 
sequel in the parable (10:30 ff.). Jericho is spoken of twice, in the 
parable as the place to which the man was going (10:30), and again as 
the scene of the incident of Jesus and Zacchaeus (19:1 ff.). Of the two 
Samaritans mentioned one was on the road between Jerusalem and 
Jericho (10:33 with 30), and the other (17:16), the possible exception 
spoken of, is not presented as being in his own country, though its bor- 
ders were not many miles from Jerusalem, but, except in the probably 
Lukan editorial vs. 11, is located only at “ἃ certain village” (17:12). 
However, in this narrative also the thought of Jerusalem and the temple 
seems to lie in the background, as shown in the words, ‘‘Go and show 


159 


92 HISTORICAL AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES 


yourselves unto the priests,” and, ‘‘as they went” (17:14; cf. Lev. 14: 
2, 10-32). 

This brings us to a notice of the persons mentioned in this material 
in their bearing on its geographical point of view. The priests as just 
now spoken of suggest Jerusalem and the temple (17:14), and so does 
the only other mention of a priest in Luke’s Perean section, that of the 
one who was going down to Jericho (10:31). So does also the intro- 
duction of the Levite in the same parable. (Cf. the only other reference 
to Levites in the gospels, John 1:19.) The persons whose names appear 
in the material of this group are also nearly all connected with Judea. 
The personal names that appear are: Jesus, Pilate, Abraham, Lazarus, 
Moses, and Zacchaeus. The names of Moses (used here only for the 
books of Moses), Abraham, and Jesus give little geographical suggestion, 
but the other three are specially connected with Judea. Pilate was 
procurator of Judea, and in this case is mentioned as performing a deed 
which must have been done in Jerusalem, at the temple (13:1-2). 
Zacchaeus was evidently from the narrative (19:1-7) a resident of Jeri- 
cho. Lazarus, the name of the poor man in the parable (16: 19-31), is 
one known elsewhere in the New Testament only as that of a man who 
lived in Bethany, a village near Jerusalem (cf. John 11:1, 18). 

Thus six out of the nine sections of the material of this group, and 
the only ones that contain proper names or definite geographical refer- 
ences, are connected by them more or less closely with Judea, especially 
the parts near Jerusalem. Of two of them J. Weiss says:' “The narra- 
tive [of the Good Samaritan] has Judean-Jerusalem local tone, like that 
of the Pharisee and the Publican; it is intended for hearers in Jerusalem”’; 
and again: ‘‘They are hardly spoken in Galilee, but in Jerusalem.” 
Taken all together these facts indicating the geographical standpoint of 
this second group of material seem to point strongly to Jerusalem or some 
place not far from it as the gathering-place of at least a considerable 
portion of it, with none to point elsewhere for the rest. 

Another difference in point of view seems to be indicated by the con- 
trast as to interest in the despised and hated and the poor and unfortu- 
nate which appears in the material of the two groups. In that of the first 
group this interest, though widely shown in Luke’s Gospel as a whole, 
is not found at all. The nearest approach to it seems to be in the refer- 
ence to revealing unto “babes” in 10:21, that to extortion in 11:39, and 
that to the grievous burdens of the law in 11:46. Butin the second group 
in the first place publicans play a large part, and are always presented 


τ Die Schriften des Neuen Testaments, 2. Aufl., I, S. 464 and 496. 
160 


THE SOURCES OF LUKE’S PEREAN SECTION 55: 


favorably (15:1 ff.; 18:9-14a; το: 1-το). With these are connected those 
called “sinners” in a special sense (15:1, 2), and the chief publican is 
called a “sinner’’ by the bystanders in 19:7. (Cf. also 18:13 in this group 
for a linking of the words.) Lepers, another class of social outcasts, 
appear as objects of Jesus’ ministry in17:11-19. Samaritans are singled 
out for honor and made examples for emulation here alone in the New 
Testament. (For the common Jewish attitude toward this people cf. 
John 4:9 and especially 8:48.) The ‘Good Samaritan” of the parable 
and the thankful Samaritan leper are notable figures in this material (10: 
30-37 and 17:12-19). A loathsome beggar is carried to blessedness 
after death, and is made the desirable figure in the parable of 16: 19-31. 
Somewhat similarly the bringing-in of the poor and maimed and blind 
and lame and those from the highways and hedges to the great supper is 
a conspicuous though not the chief part in the parable given in 14: 16-24. 
Such a point of view is suggested also in the saying of 16:15, which implies 
that God’s estimates are often the reverse of men’s. Possibly a sugges- 
tion of it may also be found in the references to Galileans in 13:1-5, a 
passage which from the order of presentation as well as the details 
given would appear to have been addressed to those whose standpoint 
was nearer to Jerusalem than to Galilee. Thus this point of view is 
found reflected in all but one or perhaps two of the nine sections of the 
material, and is a notable feature of it. 

Further difference in the point of view of the two groups of material 
appears when we consider the matter of eschatology. The material of 
the first group contains a number of references to a future world-crisis. 
They are found in six of the sections, 2, 7, 9, 12, 16, 26, and §§12 and 
26 are entirely devoted to this subject. These references take a number 
of different forms. In 12:40 it is said, ‘In an hour that ye think not 
the Son of man cometh.” 12:42-46 is a parable presenting the coming 
of the Lord and his rewarding and punishing his faithful and unfaithful 
servants. Luke 17:23-24 says: ‘And they shall say to you, Lo, there! 
Lo, here! go not away nor follow after: for as the lightning, when it light- 
eneth out of the one part under heaven, shineth unto the other part under 
heaven; so shall the Son of man be.” Before a description of the sud- 
denness of the flood it is said in 17:26: “And as it came to pass in the 
days of Noah, even so shall it be also in the days of the Son of man,” and 
after it: ‘After the same manner shall it be in the day that the Son of 
man 15 revealed” (17:30). Very shortly after we find (17:34-35), “In 
that night there shall be two men on one bed; the one shall be taken, 


τ Cf. also p. 47. 
161 


94 HISTORICAL AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES 


and the other shall be left. There shall be two women grinding together; 
the one shall be taken, and the other shall be left.”” Luke 13: 2829 tells 
that some are to be “cast forth without” and others to come and ‘“‘sit 
down in the kingdom of God.” This does not perhaps necessarily refer 
to a particular crisis, but seems to be naturally so interpreted. Reference 
to a future world-crisis can be readily seen in the mention of “‘that day” 
and “the judgment” in 10:12, 14 though the words may be otherwise in- 
terpreted. More certainly in point are the references to ‘“‘the judgment” 
in 11:31, 32, in which it appears as a wide-reaching event at a specific time. 
The statement in 11: 50-51 that “the blood of all the prophets, which was 
shed from the foundation of the world, .... shall be required of this 
generation”’ clearly implies some kind of a coming general crisis. 

But the second group, though it largely deals with salvation, and 
presents a picture of blessedness and torment after death (16:19-31), 
gives no suggestion of a future world-crisis of any sort. Even the phrase 
“kingdom of God,” βασιλεία τοῦ θεοῦ, and the word “kingdom,” 
βασιλεία, often associated in the New Testament with an idea of future 
change, are absent altogether from the material of this group.t Yet 
in the first group references to the kingdom of God are rather numerous, 
occurring in eight different sections. It is represented as the subject 
of preaching, 9:60; 10:9, 11; 16:16; asan object for which the disciples 
are to pray, 11:2, and work, 12:31; as having come upon those from 
whom Jesus casts out demons, 11: 20; as being like a grain of mustard seed 
and like leaven, 13:18-21; as including the patriarchs and men who 
should come to it “from the east and west, and from the north and 
south,’”’ but excluding some to whom Jesus spoke, 13:28-29; and as 
being entered violently since the time of John, 16:16. (The sections 
thus bound together are those numbered 1, 2, 4, 6, 11, 15, 16, and 21.) 

Further, we may note that the differences in the conception of Jesus 
presented in the two groups indicate further differences in point of view. 
In both he is presented as the authoritative teacher, but the strong inter- 
est in his commandments appears to be confined to the first group. In 
it the whole of δ 4, 5, 10, 11, 12, 14, 19, 21, 22, 24 is taken up with them, 
and considerable parts of 1,2,andg9. They are also to be found in δὲ 8 
and 26. In the material of the second group the passages that can be 
interpreted as such cover not more than perhaps half a dozen verses, 
(10:37; 12:15a; 16:29-31; 19:8-9), and 12:15@ is the only clear 
example of a commandment given as from Jesus. 


* The same is true of the words for “king”? (βασιλεύς) and for “reigning as king”’ 
(βασιλεύω). 


162 


THE SOURCES OF LUKE’S PEREAN SECTION 35 


In the first group the thought of Jesus as authoritative leader har- 
monizes with the presentation of his commandments, just noted, and 
appears especially in a few passages, some not commandments. These 
are: 9:59, 60, “Follow me,” “Leave the dead to bury their own dead; 
but go thou and publish abroad the kingdom of God”’; 10:3, “I send 
you forth”; 11:2-4, ““When ye pray, say .. . .”; 11:23, “He that is 
not with me is against me; and he that gathereth not with me scatter- 


eth”; 12:51-53, “Think ye that I am come to give peace in the earth? 


«νον ΟΣ 13:34-35, “Jerusalem .... ! how often would I have gath- 
ered thy children together .... ! Behold, your house is left unto 
you... .”; and 10:13-15, the woes on cities where he had worked. 


Jesus’ requirement of unconditional devotion is strongly presented in 
14:26-27. Ina number of passages the thought of Jesus as in a special 
relation to God, and as bringing a revelation such as the world had not 
had, appears. Such are 10:22; 10:23-24; 11:16, apparently; 11:20; 
11:31-22; 12:8; 12:10. In addition two sections deal particularly with 
the Son of man and the future. Section 12, after speaking of the unex- 
pected coming of the thief, says: ‘Be ye also ready: for in an hour that 
ye think not the Son of man cometh.’ This and the passages in chap. 
17 cited on p. 27 seem clearly to indicate a view as to Jesus’ future 
activity on the part of the collector of this material (ὃ 26 entire). In its 
context also the parable of the lord who comes and rewards and punishes 
his servants (12:42-46, ὃ 12) seems to indicate a similar view, and a 
similar view is also indicated in 12:8, $10. A strong interest in Jesus’ 
future activity is thus revealed. 

On the other hand, in the second group it is rather as a savior that 
Jesus is presented, one who in the present brings salvation to men or 
brings them to the attaining of it (17:11-19; 19:1-10). In one incident 
he directs ten lepers into the course in which they receive physical heal- 
ing (17:12-14), and apparently proclaims the spiritual salvation of the 
thankful one who returns to him (17:19). In the last section it is appar- 
ently Jesus’ influence on Zacchaeus, of the progress of which the account 
is a sketch, that leads to the generous announcement of the chief publican 
and makes possible Jesus’ declaration to him that “‘ Today is salvation 
come to this house” (19:8, 9). The final sentence (vs. 10): “For the 
Son of man came to seek and to save that which was lost,” is a direct 
statement of this conception, which must, it seems, have been in the 
mind of the collector of this material. In this connection it is suggestive 
that the name Jesus appears in the material of this group more frequently 
than in the rest of Luke’s Perean section. It occurs seven times in that 


163 


90 HISTORICAL AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES 


we are now considering, three times more in sections perhaps belonging 
with it (13:12, 14; 14:2), and only twice elsewhere (9:58, 62). That 
special significance was seen by early Christians in this name is shown in 
Matt. 1:21, which has earlier usage behind it (cf. Sir. XLVI: 1 and Philo, 
Nom. mutat. § 21, quoted by Thayer, s.v.). Philo says: ‘Jesus’ is inter- 
preted ‘the Lord’s salvation’ ”’ (Joc. cit.). Five of the occurrences of the 
name are in the two sections just mentioned as presenting Jesus as a 
savior. The other two in this material are in 10: 30 and 37, in connection 
with the parable of the Good Samaritan, which is presented by Jesus as 
a direction concerning the way of life (cf. vss. 28 and 37). 

Though the phrase “the Son of man”’ sometimes associated in the 
gospels with a thought of the future occurs once in the material of the 
second group (19:10), no such association is here evident, the salvation 
brought being explicitly present, “‘Today has salvation come.”’ More- 
over, throughout all this material nothing whatever is said of any future 
activity of Jesus. Though the fate of men after death appears in one of 
the parables (16:19-31), that Jesus is to have anything to do in deter- 
mining that fate is not even hinted. Further, nothing is said of a 
Parousia or future coming of Christ, and nothing of any activity of Jesus 
to come in connection with a future world-crisis of any form. 

Taken all together, the indications we have noted of differences in 
point of view, local, practical, eschatological, and christological, add dis- 
tinctly to the force of the argument for the existence of two sources 
behind Luke’s Perean section. 

Finally as evidence for such distinctness of sources we may note the 
aim, and the type of expected readers that appear in each of the two 
groups that we have been considering. The material of the first group 
seems to be intended for instruction and encouragement of disciples, and 
to be adapted to those actively engaged in the mission. The further- 
ance of the mission seems to be its aim. One might almost venture to 
call it a manual for missionaries. While some parts, as 13:28 and those 
between 11:14 and 52, are not in form addressed to disciples, they could 
be used by them in meeting opponents. In general they would hardly 
have been prepared for non-Christian readers, it would seem. 

But in the second group each part seems to bear on a central theme 
that may be stated as repentance, the change of one’s life-purpose to one 
of love, as the way to salvation. The first two passages, 12:13-20 and 
12:1 Ὁ, present men’s need of such repentance. The next, 14:16-24, 
warns against neglecting the invitation toit. Thenext, chap. 15, presents 
the other side of repentance, God’s seeking of sinners and his joy in their 


164 


THE SOURCES OF LUKE’S PEREAN SECTION S76 


repentance, and also indicates that men should take an attitude similar 
to God’s. Luke 16:15, 19-26 warns against complacency with earthly 
honor or luxury, while 27-31 adds the assertion of the sufficiency of the 
Old Testament to direct men to repentance. The last is made more 
definite in 10:25-28 (for the present classed as doubtful as to whether 
it belonged to this group) by Jesus’ saying of the laws of love to God and 
man, ‘“‘This do, and thou shalt live,” and in 30-37 Jesus illustrates and 
urges the love to man. In 17:12-19 an illustration, in Jesus’ own act, 
of love and mercy to men is joined with the indication that gratitude to 
God and faith, shown in obedience to Jesus’ direction, brought salvation 
to one of a race despised by Jews. The next passage, 18:9-14, assures 
that penitence rather than self-satisfaction brings justification; and the 
final one, 19: 1-10, gives an example of repentance as the change of a life- 
purpose to one of love brought about by Jesus, and declared by him to 
mean the coming of salvation to the house of the changed man. The 
final sentence asserts that Jesus came to seek and save the lost. The 
passages from 16:27 on, including 10: 25-37, point out the nature of the 
new life and the way it may be attained, previous parts having empha- 
sized the need for a change to it, and the possibility (need, 12:13-20; 
ΠΡΟΣ 14:16-24; 16:15, 19-26; possibility, 15:1-32). This unity 
of thought in the material seems to indicate as its purpose and aim the 
leading of men to repentance that they might be saved. Thusasa whole 
this group of material seems particularly adapted for those not yet 
disciples. 

Thus evidence from within the material itself may be said, taking 
it all together, decisively to confirm the suggestion derived from the rela- 
tion of the material to use in Matthew that two separate and distinct 
bodies of source material have gone into the making of Luke’s Perean 
section. Whether each of these bodies was from a single source rather 
than from a number of sources is to be considered in the two following 
chapters. 


165 


CHAPTER III 


HOMOGENEITY OF MATERIAL COMMON TO MATTHEW 
AND LUKE 


The nature and extent of the resemblances between parts of Luke’s 
Perean section and of the Gospel of Matthew may be said to make it 
practically certain that their relationship is documentary rather than 
ΟΥ̓Δ]. That it was a single document rather than two or more that 
entered into the making of both Luke’s Perean section and correspond- 
ing portions of the Gospel of Matthew may be regarded in advance of 
investigation as somewhat more probable. For the smaller the number 
of separate documents that we consider two independent workers both 
to have had, the easier is the supposition. 

When we consider the matter in Luke’s Perean section common to 
Matthew and Luke (the “‘first group” of the previous chapter) we do 
find characteristics binding it together, which thus support the idea that 
it was a single document rather than two or more from which it was 
derived. In noting these characteristics we have in mind not only this 
support, but also the furnishing of criteria for determining whether or 
not other material in this section, not found in Matthew, belonged to the 
same document. 

One of the characteristics that appears most widely in this material 
common to Matthew and Luke is the presence of symbolic, enigmatical, 
compressed sayings, such as, ‘‘ Where the body is, thither will the eagles 
also be gathered together,” Luke 17:37, and ‘‘Leave the dead to bury 
their own dead,” Luke 9:60. Such are to be found in Luke 9:60; 11:20, 
23, 33-35) 47, 52; 12:2, 4-5, 6, 7, το, 336-34; 13:20, 340, 35a,6; 14:11, 
27; 16:13, 16, 17, 18; 17:1, 6, 24, 33, 37d. Similar sayings with some 
of the characteristics less marked are to be found also in 9:58; 10:15, 
21-22, 230-24: 1τ. 4. Ὁ,.30; 12:25, 39, 42. 40; 585 59; 13:10, 217 ΤΠ 
26; 17:34, 35. Of the twenty-six sections into which this material has 
been divided, only three, 7, 13, and 24, including nine verses in all, lack 
one or more of these sayings. It is to be noted also that in general 
throughout this material there are many detached or readily detachable 
sayings and brief incidents. As examples may be cited Luke 10:16, 
23-24, II:1-4, 5-8, 9-10, II-13, 19, 23, 24-20, 27-28, 33) 42. 

«See pp. 71. 

38 : [166 


THE SOURCES OF LUKE’S PEREAN SECTION 39 


As to the tying-together of sentences moreover, in every part, with 
the exception of two sections, 1 and 25, there is an unusually large pro- 
portion of sentences without any particle to connect them with what 
precedes. In only three of the twenty-six sections, §§1, 6, and το, is 
the number of such sentences more than two less than that of those con- 
nected by καί or δέ with what precedes put together, and in only five 
is it more than one less, §§ 1, 6, 10, 12, 25. 

The extensive use for connecting sentences of particles other than 
καί and δέ is also a notable trait in many of the sections. In nine of 
them, δὲ 2, 3, 5, 7, 11, 13, 14, 18, and 20, their number as so used exceeds 
that of either of the most common conjunctions, and in four more, §§ 
8, 15, 17, and 26, it equals that of either. In only four, δὲ 1, 4, 6, and 
25, does it fall below that of both καί and δέ: The facts as to each sec- 
tion may be noted as follows: the number of the section coming first 
in each case, then the number of sentences in it introduced by (1) καί, 
(2) δέ, (3) other particles, (4) no connective particle or device: 1, 2+3+ 
oto; 2, 3+st6+7; 3, rtot2t+2; 4, 2trtote; 5, rti+3+2; 
6, 3+5+1+2; 7,0+0+3+3; 8, o+1+1+3; 9,0+4+3+5; 10, 2+ 
ΠῚ ΑἸ t-+-3-+-4-+-6; 12, t-+34-1+2; 13,6 ΓΟ ΓΖ ΓΙ; 14,0+o+ 
ΠῚ 15, Ί ΓΟ Γ12; τὸ, 1-+-o+0+1; 17,0+1+1-+1; 18,0+0+1-+0; 
ΕΠ ΘΙ ΟΓΙ; 20, ΟΓΟΓΙ ΓΖ; 21, ΟΓΙ ΓΟΓΖ2; 22, ΟΙΟΤΟΓ; 
ΠΟΙ ΓΟΤῚ; 24, I4-0-7-0--0; 25, 1-+-1--0--0;, 20, 2--o-+2-+5. 

With perhaps two or three minor exceptions (13:18-19, 20-21; 
12:30 ἢ) the eleven parables of the material closely paralleled in Matthew 
are, as we have already noted (p. 29), in effect statements of general 
laws or customs of human action or of the course of nature rather than 
narrations of particular actions. The form in some cases is made wholly 
or partly that of questions. As to the exceptions, the parable of the 
Mustard Seed, 13:18—19, is in Luke a genuine narrative parable, though 
very brief. In Mark, 4:30-32, it is not narrative, but a general state- 
ment of the course of nature. Matthew’s version (13:31-32) is partly 
narrative and partly general statement. The allied parable of the 
Leaven, Luke 13:20-21 (= Matthew 13:33), is exceedingly brief, and 


t The number of occurrences of different forms of sentence connection in the 
material of the second group may be noted for comparison; see p. 27. 

For a series of supposedly representative passages taken from Luke, Vogel, Zur 
Charakteristik des Lukas nach Sprache und Stil, 1897, S. 26, gives the number of clause- 
beginnings with (1) καί, (2) δέ, (3) τέ, (4) other particles, (5) without particles, as 
so+36+1+6+7; and for a similar series in Acts as 16+51-+9+16+8. The con- 
trast with all of these of the group of sections we are considering is striking. (τέ does 
not occur in either of our groups.) 


167 


40 HISTORICAL AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES 


is almost as much a simile as a parable. Luke 12:39 implies rather than 
presents a narrated incident. Noticeable in many of the parables of this 
material is a balancing of parts by the presentation of alternatives or 
additional examples. Cf. 12:41-46, ὃ 12; 11:11, ὃ 5; 16:13, ὃ 20, for 
various instances of this trait. With this may be connected the pairing 
of similar parables, seen in 13:18—21, §15,and 12:24, 27-28, §11. The 
parables are distributed as follows: ὃ 5, 11:11-13; §6, 11:17; ὃ 8, 11:33; 
§ ro, 12:6; §11, 12:24, 27-28; § 12, 12:30, 42-46; ὃ 15, 13:18-19, 20-21; 
§ 20, 16:13. Thus eight of the sections are bound together by the pres- 
ence of parables, and all but one of these ($15) by that of parables of a 
distinct type, different from that most common in the material of the 
second group. (See pp. 291.) 

More general than any of the traits heretofore noticed, perhaps, is 
the parallelism in form or thought or both which, as we have already 
noted,! is found in every one of the sections and in almost every verse 
of the material of the first group. 

The absence of definite geographical references is another feature 
that binds together all the sections of this material. Not a saying or 
occurrence in the whole group is assigned to a place that is named. In 
four verses of § 2 six cities or towns are named, three as places where 
Jesus has worked, and three as heathen cities with which they are com- 
pared. Jerusalem is mentioned once (13:34, §17) as the rejecter of 
prophets and of Jesus. The Ninevites to whom Jonah preached are 
spoken of in $7. These are all the place-names that occur. In the 
reference to the place ‘between the altar and the sanctuary” (11:51, 
§ 9), Jerusalem is again indicated as a place where prophets have been 
slain. The scarcity of personal names is also noteworthy, and the fact 
that almost all that do occur are from the Old Testament. The name 
of Jonah the prophet appears four times in one section (7), that of 
Solomon three times in two sections (11:31, ὃ 7; 12:27, ὃ 11), those of 
Abel and Zachariah (cf. II Chron. 24: 20-21) in 11:51, those of “Abraham, 
Isaac, and Jacob,” in 13:28, and that of Noah twice in 17: 26-27, § 26. 
The name of Jesus appears only once, in the first section. This may be 
especially significant as indicating that when the name of Jesus had once 
been introduced at the beginning of the document, being assumed as 
understood it did not again appear in it. No other name of a con- 
temporary of the events occurs. The only other personal name is that 
of Beelzebul (Βεελζεβούλ) in ὃ 6, 11:19. 

In the previous chapter a number of other characteristics have been 

ΤΡ: 254. 

168 


THE SOURCES OF LUKE’S PEREAN SECTION 41 


brought out that bind together many of the sections of this group and 
so confirm the hypothesis that they belonged to a single document. 
Thus references to a future world-crisis are found in six sections, §§ 2, 7, 
9, 12, 16, and 26; and §§ 12 and 26 are entirely devoted to this subject. 
Definite references to the kingdom of God are found in eight sections, 
§§ 1, 2, 4, 6, 11, 15, 16, and 21. As to the strong interest in command- 
ments of Jesus, the whole of δὲ 4, 5, 10, 11, 12, 14, 19, 21, 22, and 24 is 
taken up with them, and so are considerable parts of §$1,2,and9. They 
are also to be found in §$8 and 26. The conception of Jesus as authori- 
tative leader appears strongly in §§$1 (9:59-60), 2 (10:3 and 13-15), 
4 (11:2-4), 6 (11:23), 13 (12:51-53), and 19 (14:26-27). The thought 
of him as holding a special relation to God and bringing a new revelation 
such as the world had not seen appears in δὲ 3 (10:22, 23-24), 6 (11:20 
and apparently 11:16), 7 (11:31-32), and 10 (12:8 and 10). Two whole 
sections, 12 and 26, deal with the Son of man in the future, and, in 12: 
8, § ro contains another clear promise of his future activity. 

In different sections of the material, salvation is looked at from two 
points of view. In some, salvation or rejection is viewed as affecting 
individuals; in others, as shared in by large groups collectively, as 
cities, the Pharisees, and ‘‘this generation.”” The former point of view 
is seen in §§ 3, 10, 12, 13, and 26; the latter in §§ 2 (10:8-15), 7, 9, and 
17. The two are not mutually exclusive, but supplementary, and could 
have been taken by the same compiler. 

As to the attitude toward the Old Testament shown in the material, 
we may first notice that its events and characters are several times men- 
tioned, in §§ 3, 7, 9, 11, 16,17, and 26. That the law is held to be still 
binding is indicated in two sections, 9 and 21: “‘ Woe unto you, Pharisees! 
for ye tithe mint and rue and every herb, and pass over justice and the 
love of God: but these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other 
undone” (11:42); and, “It is easier for heaven and earth to pass away, 
than for one tittle of the law to fall” (16:17). But the Old Testament 
is considered no longer the highest revelation according to six sections. 
For in the verse before the statement last quoted it is said: “ΤΠ law 
and the prophets were until John: from that time the gospel of the king- 
dom of God is preached”’ (16:16, §21). Jesus revealed what its prophets 
and kings did not see (10:23-24, ὃ 3); and he is more than they were 
(11:31-32, §7). And he restated and deepened some of its laws, 
δὲ 22-24 (cf. Lev. 18:20; 19:14, 17-18). 

Though no logical sequence is found running throughout this group 
of material, certain parts now separated do show coherence or natural 


169 


42 HISTORICAL AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES 


connection in thought. It is a remarkable fact that such connection 
seems to be traceable in nearly every case in which material of the second 
group comes between parts assigned to the first. Connection between 
§§ 3 and 4 may be found when the latter is considered an example of 
Jesus’ revelation of the Father in words that the disciples were pecu- 
liarly blessed in hearing. The coherence of §§ το and 11 becomes clear 
when vss. 11 and 12 are added to the former. They were left out in the 
first place because of the close parallel to them in Mark, but it seems 
clear that in substance at least they stood in this other document used 
by Matthew and Luke. Thus the thought that knowledge of God’s 
care for them should free the disciples from fear and anxiety is carried 
over from its application to confession in § τὸ to a further application to 
their ordinary wants in ὃ τι. Sections 18-24 seem to be all connected 
in thought as indicating various requirements of the disciple. Self- 
abasement in ὃ τὸ is followed by renunciation: in ὃ το, and that by 
completeness of devotion in $20. After this follows obedience to the 
law in §21. A statement of offenses against the marriage bond, ὃ 22, is 
naturally followed by a warning against causing others to sin, § 23. 
Moreover, we find that in most cases where material not assigned to 
the second document separates parts of that now under consideration 
some coherence or connection in thought can be found between the 
separated parts. Section 2 is connected with §1 by the thought of the 
urgency of the mission; § 3 carries on from § 2 the ideas of a revelation 
through Jesus and the failure of some to receive it; §§ 4 and 5 are con- 
nected by the thought of petition in prayer; § 7 takes up the seeking for 
a sign mentioned near the beginning of §6; ὃ 9 appears to be con- 
nected with § 8 by the thought of men’s inner condition, and with § 10 
by that of the revelation of things hidden; § 12 seems to be connected 
with § 11 by the thought of the need of readiness for a great change in 
conditions, also by the mention of the coming of the thief, and § 13 with 
it in that they deal with two sorts of division to be brought about by 
Jesus. (Note μέρος, vs. 46, and διαμερισμόν, διαμερίζω, vss. 51-53.) 
Section 14 might have been considered to be instructions as to meeting 
hostility such as is predicted in § 13; § 16 is connected with § 15 by the 
thought of the future extent of the kingdom of God, and with ὃ 17 by. 
the thought of rejection; ὃ 18 might be considered the statement of a 
general truth exemplified in ὃ 17; and §§ 23 and 24 closely connected 
as presenting two phases of duty with respect to the sin of others, the 
former not causing it, the latter rebuking and forgiving it. Of the sec- 
tions not separated by intervening material, §§ 21 and 22 are connected 


170 


THE SOURCES OF LUKE’S PEREAN SECTION 43 


as dealing with the law in the new period, and 7 and 8 perhaps by the 
thought of failure to profit by Jesus’ presence. That connections of 
thought are found so generally through this material where its parts 
are separated by other material still further confirms the hypothesis 
that it belonged to a single document prior to the Gospel of Luke 
and prior to the insertion of some at least of the intervening material. 
Met, pp: 20 ff.) 

The extent to which all the sections of this material are bound 
together by the characteristics we have noted may be partially indi- 
cated by observing the number of these characteristics that bind each 
section to others in the group. The figures may be placed as follows: 
§ 1,8; 12; ὃ 3, 10; ὃ 4, το; §5, 10; §6,9; §7, 10; ὃ 8,10; §9, 11; 
§ 10, 10; § 11, 12; ὃ 12, 11; ὃ 13, 8; § 14, 8; ὃ 15, 10; ὃ τό, 9; § 17, 9; 
§ 18, 8; § 19, 9; § 20, 10; § 21, 11; § 22, 9; ὃ 23, 8; ὃ 24, 7; ὃ 25, 4; 
ὃ 26,9. When it is considered that a number of these sections contain 
but a single verse (so § 25), this showing may well be considered 
remarkable, not only in the number of the connections found, but in 
their even distribution among the sections. The facts we have adduced 
seem sufficient confirmation for the antecedent probability that one 
document rather than two or more furnished that portion of the material 
of Luke’s Perean section that appears also in Matthew and has been 
gathered in our first group. 


171 


CHAPTER IV 


HOMOGENEITY OF A BODY OF MATERIAL NOT USED IN 
MATTHEW 


We have previously noticed the seeming suitability to the purposes 
of Matthew’s Gospel of certain parts of the material in Luke’s Perean 
section that he has not used and the strength that fact lends to the sup- 
position that those parts were not in a document used by Matthew in 
the composition of his gospel.t. For the idea that a considerable part 
of this material may have come from a single document we found sup- 
port in the fact that through a large part of it a line of thought can be 
traced having better logical sequence at each place where the portions 
are now separated than those portions have with their present context, 
and involving change of the present order only in the case of the first 
parable of the group.? The force of this better coherence is not weak- 
ened by the fact that in tracing it two parables were used which have 
parallels in Matthew, for in both cases, conspicuously so in the more 
important one, the variations in the two gospels are so great as to make 
it seem probable that different sources lay back of them.3 

To reconstruct this second source we added to the passages of group 
4 (see p. 6) the rest of those indicated by their relation to use in 
Matthew as probably not in his possession (p. 6, group 20), and also 
Luke 19:1-10, which Matthew might seemingly have omitted had 
he had it, though he might also have used it (p. 16). These passages, 
in the order in which they occur, are all connected in thought with the 
passages next them in the group. Thus 12:13-20 is connected with 
13:1-9 by the thought of death as punishment for a wrong course of 
living, and 13:1-9 with 14:16-24 by the thought that failure to respond 
to opportunity given leads to rejection. The passages added at the end, 
18:9-14a and 19: 1-10, are connected with each other by both presenting 
examples of repentance as the way to salvation, the man commended 
being in each case a publican. The thought of both is closely allied with 
that of 17:12-19 now next them in the group, in which the coming to 


t Pp. 16-19. 2 Pp. 20-24. 

3 Cf. p.9; also Harnack, Sayings of Jesus, pp. 119 ff., and pp. οἵ ff.; Burton, 
Principles of Literary Criticism, pp. 41, 65, and 40; and Sharman, The Teaching of 
Jesus about the Future, pp. 29 f., 202, and 76 ff. 

44 [172 


THE SOURCES OF LUKE’S PEREAN SECTION 45 


salvation of one of another class despised by Jews is narrated. More- 
over, the material now between them is all derived from Mark, so that 
it seems altogether likely that in Luke’s source they stood together. 
A further suggestion that 12: 13-20 belongs with this group may be found 
in the fact that the material on either side of it has been assigned to the 
document used by Matthew (pp. 7f. and 43), and that this passage 
makes something of an interruption in the course of thought." 

In presenting the inner evidence for distinctness of sources in chap. 
ii we presented other facts that tend to confirm the idea that the material 
of this “‘second group”? came from a single document or source. It 
remains for us in this chapter to recall some of these facts and to present 
still others that point in the same direction, to see how far the suggestion 
is confirmed that it was a single document rather than two or more docu- 
mentary or other sources that furnished the material of the second group, 
listed on p. 24. 

The great characteristic one may expect to find in material from a 
single document is unity, and the greater and more complete is the unity 
in a group of material the greater is the confidence that is justified that 
it belongs to one document. As we have already seen,? the material 
we are considering does appear to have unity, all of it centering in its 
thought about the change from a self-centered, sinful life to one of love 
to God and men, and being thus unified in thought to a degree that may 
be considered remarkable. And with this unity of thought in the 
material, as was also previously suggested,3 there seems to be a unity of 
purpose or aim running through the whole of it, namely, a desire to 
lead men to repentance that they may be saved. 

The evidence that it came from a single document furnished by 
the coherence of the material we are considering and by its unity in 
thought and in purpose or aim is corroborated by various likenesses in 
point of view to be found in its parts. 

Four of the nine sections contain seven definite geographical refer- 
ences. All of these point either to Jerusalem (five) or to Jericho (two). 
The sections thus connected with Jerusalem are §§ 2, 6, 8; and those 
mentioning Jericho are δὲ 6 and 9. Section 7 is less definitely shown 
to be connected with Jersualem,‘ and also ὃ 5 with its near neighborhood 
(p. 32). Thus §§ 2, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 are all more or less closely connected 
with Jerusalem or parts of Judea near it.s 

A point of view which appears even more generally than the geo- 


Σ ΘΕ Pp. 21. sub ΕΣ 5 See p. 32. 
Pp 26: 4 See pp. 31f. 
173 


46 HISTORICAL AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES 


graphical through the material of the second group may be called the 
economic. The author or compiler of it would appear from the material 
he used and his arrangement of it to have had a decided interest in men’s 
conduct in connection with property or material possessions. The 
opening words addressed to Jesus: “Teacher, bid my brother divide the 
inheritance with me” (12:13), and the closing ones: “Behold, Lord, 
the half of my goods I give to the poor; and if I have wrongfully exacted 
aught of any man, I restore fourfold” (19:8), form a striking and appar- 
ently significant contrast. And the first half of the contrast is carried 
on in the attitude of the rich man in the opening parable. He asks 
himself the question: ‘‘What shall I do, because I have not where to 
bestow my fruits?” and his answer is a typical expression of the self- 
centered and self-indulgent attitude in the use of wealth. The view of 
the compiler is probably reflected in the condemnation which is passed 
on the man who took it. The answer the author would give as to the 
proper disposal of troublesome possessions seems to be given in the 
declaration of Zacchaeus at the close, which we just now quoted (19:8). 
Of the material between the presentations of these strongly contrasting 
attitudes in the matter of the use of property almost every part seems to 
reflect, though not all with the same clearness, an interest in this problem. 

In 13:1-9 this interest seems to be shown only in the parable, vss. 
6-9, in the endeavor of the owner to make his cultivated ground profit- 
able. In 14:16-24, the parable of the Great Supper, two of the three 
excuses reported are on the ground of property, a field and five yoke of 
oxen, newly bought. The bringing-in of the poor and unfortunate to 
eat the supper is a more central trait in the story that suggests the same 
interest. In the three parables of chap. 15 the first two present the con- 
duct of a man and a woman when a small part of their material posses- 
sions is lost, hunting for and finding it, and rejoicing over the recovery 
(15:3-6, 8-9). In the third parable (15:11-32) the whole framework 
is of conduct related to property. The patrimony is divided between 
two sons, one squanders his share, and is led by destitution to return 
seeking employment under his father, who gives him a dress of honor 
and sacrifices an animal for a feast. This is reported to the elder 
brother. Then the complaint of the elder brother and the father’s reply 
at the close of the parable both have to do with the use of property. 
Though the verse that precedes it was not included’ in the group, 16:15 
may easily be taken as referring, in part at least, to material possessions, 
especially as the parable which follows immediately in this material 


1 See p. 24, note. 
174 


THE SOURCES OF LUKE’S PEREAN SECTION 47 


(16: 19-31) is one of contrast between the condition of a rich man and a 
beggar, in this life and after death. It is after this parable that we 
placed according to thought connection that of the Good Samaritan 
(10:30-37). There we find a man stripped of his possessions, and 
another using his own to care for him, paying for further care at an inn, 
and promising to repay to the host anything more that is spent for the 
man. The incident of the ten lepers (17:12-19, ὃ 7), which comes next 
in our reconstruction, fails to show the economic interest. But in the 
parable of the Pharisee and the Publican, which follows (18:9-14), the 
former thanks God that he is not an extortioner, and the final virtue of 
the two he claims for himself is the giving of tithes of all that he gets. 
Immediately after this comes the final incident, in which the rich chief 
publican declares to Jesus his purpose to give half his goods to the poor 
and restore fourfold if he has wrongfully exacted anything of any man, 
and in which Jesus thereupon declares: ‘‘ Today is salvation come to 
this house.”’ Only § 7 fails to show strongly this interest, and the reve- 
lation of it helps to confirm the hypothesis that the material belonged 
to a single separate document. 

As to the vocational point of view of the collector of this material, 
in connection with the keen interest in men’s use of property just spoken 
of, we may notice that so far as Luke’s Perean section goes the only 
references to the collectors or renters of taxes are in the material of the 
second group. Here they havea considerable and entirely commendable 
part. Here alone in the New Testament we find a chief of the tax col- 
lectors (ἀρχιτελώνης, 19:2 ff.). Not only are we told that “all” of them 
were drawing near to Jesus to hear him (15:1), but the three parables 
of chap. 15 are given by Jesus, partly at least, in explanation of his 
friendly attitude toward them, and we are taken in 18:9-13 and 19:1-10 
into the inner life of two of them, a phenomenon not found elsewhere in 
the New Testament. Both of these men are strongly commended, and 
in fact they would seem to be used as the crowning examples of repentance 
in a document dealing with this subject. The fulness and vividness 
with which the Zacchaeus incident is told is also noticeable. These facts 
together with the previously noted! interest in the despised and hated 
make it seem perhaps not improbable that this collection of material 
owes its origin to one whose business had been the collection of Roman 
taxes in Palestine. In any case the favorable and largely concrete pres- 
entation of men engaged in that business is another trait in the material 
that binds together different parts (δὲ 4, 8, 9). 

ap. 32 f. 

175 


48 HISTORICAL AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES 


As we have seen,’ interest in the despised and hated appears in δὲ 4, 
5, 6, 7, 8, and 9, and perhaps in 2; and in the poor and unfortunate in 
§§ 3, 5, and 7. 

The ethical point of view of this material appears in every one of 
its sections, in all but one in what seems to be its main thought. In 
general it is shown in the central theme, about which, as we have seen 
(pp. 36 f.), the whole is unified as to thought. This was there stated as 
‘repentance, the change of one’s life-purpose to one of love, as the way 
to salvation,” the repentance sought being also described as “the change 
from a self-centered, sinful life, to one of love to God and men.” This 
central theme is both religious and ethical, and the ethical side appears 
in two phases, the positive and the negative, the presentation of the kind 
of life from which, and of that to which, men should turn. The negative 
aspect appears in three sections, 12:13-21; 16:19-31; and 18:9-14. 
The first is a warning against covetousness, the considering of oneself alone 
in connection with the disposal of property, as a foolish attitude, sure to 
bring its recompense. The second has a very similar teaching, indicat- 
ing that riches are apt to be a curse rather than a blessing in the light of 
eternity, that luxury leads to torment after death. The third implies 
that self-satisfaction makes virtues and obedience to some of his statutes 
of little avail before God. In all three it is the self-centered, self-satisfied 
life that is condemned. Luke 16:15 also contributes to the negative as- 
pect, with the idea that the divine standard is very different from men’s, 

The positive aspect of the ethical side of the theme appears in all the 
other sections, though in one (ὃ 3, 14:16-24) not in its chief thought. 
It is found in its most general form in the parable of the Fig Tree (13: 
6-9), teaching that usefulness is the only way to permanence. It reaches 
its highest point in chap. 15, of which the teaching is that men should 
seek the lost and rejoice in their repentance, because God does, as we can 
be sure from human examples. It becomes clearest and most pointed 
in the parable of the Good Samaritan (10: 30-37), the teaching of which 
has been summarized as: ‘“‘Compassion is better than sacrifice.”? In 
I17:11-19 Jesus is presented as the illustrious example of one who shows 
mercy to men; and in 19:1~-10 a final actual example is given of the 
beginning of the new life, in which the purpose of a rich man to give half 
his goods to the poor and restore fourfold where he has obtained wrong- 
fully is practically said to indicate his salvation. Also in the parable 
of the Great Supper (14:16-24) the fact that the poor, maimed, blind, 
and lame are brought to the supper seems to reflect the same phase of 

CED v3 2. 2 Wernle, Die synoptische Frage, S. 95. 

176 


THE SOURCES OF LUKE’S PEREAN SECTION 49 


the subject. And the suggestion for conduct there found is more 
explicitly given in the parable of the Good Samaritan, i.e., that property 
may be well used in caring for others who are in need. The positive 
aspect of all this ethical teaching may be summarized, as to the standard, 
in the words: ‘‘Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself”’ (cf. 10: 25-28). 
And in this the point of view appears to be the same throughout. 

We come now to the religious point of view, and may examine first 
the religious aspect of the central theme, repentance, as it appears in 
different parts of the material. Of the religious significance of repent- 
ance there are two closely connected phases that appear in more than 
one of the sections, each being found in three. The first is the idea that 
God helps to bring about repentance, the second, that repentance is 
itself the entering into a relation with God. In 12:13~-20, §1 and τό: 
15, §5, God’s disapproval of the self-centered life is indicated, in the 
former with the suggestion that he brings punishment on it, as a warning. 
And that God makes positive effort to bring men to repentance and 
draws them by his own love is apparently one of the chief teachings of 
chap. 15, § 4. Repentance as the entering into a relation with God 
may be found in the incidents of the son’s return to his father in the 
parable (15:20-32, § 4), in the gratitude to God of the Samaritan (17: 
12-16, cf. 17-19, ὃ 7), and in the cry to God for mercy of the publican 
in the temple (18:9-14, § 8). 

Closely connected here with the thought of repentance is that of 
salvation, and we may now notice the ideas of salvation that run through 
this group of material. Almost throughout, salvation is presented as 
an individual matter, dependent on individual action. The rich man 
misses it through his selfishness (12:15-20) and the invited guests 
through separate failures to accept (14:16-20). Those who are brought 
to the supper are indeed treated collectively (14:21-23). But in 
the parables of chap. 15 it is the one lost out of a hundred and the 
one out of ten that are sought and found, and it is the one son that 
is received back with rejoicing from the far country when he returns 
to his father. In 16:19-26 it is the salvation of a single beggar 
and the failure to attain it of but one rich man, that are presented. 
In 16:27-31 the five brothers are considered together in speaking of 
their possible salvation. In the incident of the lepers (17:12-19) it is 
one out of ten that glorifies God, and to whom it is said, “‘ Thy faith hath 
saved [céowxev] thee.’ So in the parable of the Pharisee and the Pub- 
lican it is two individuals of whom it is said that “this man went down 
to his house justified rather than the other” (18:9-14). The Zacchaeus 


177 


50 HISTORICAL AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES 


incident gives a sketch of how one man came to change his life, and the 
words of Jesus, “Today is salvation come to this house,” must be taken 
as referring to him in particular (19:1-10). In the parable of the Good 
Samaritan (10:30-37), though salvation is made the point at issue only 
through the introductory conversation (vss. 25-29), it is the differing 
actions of individual men that are presented. 

Moreover, the collector of this material would appear to have 
thought of salvation not only as individual but as present. This perhaps 
appears most clearly in the final incident, that of Zacchaeus, at the close 
of which Jesus says: ‘‘ Today is salvation come to this house, forasmuch 
as he also is a son of Abraham. For the Son of man came to seek and to 
save that which was lost” (19:9-10). It is perhaps scarcely less clear 
in the parable that just precedes it (18:9-14), in which Jesus’ words 
at the close are: “I say unto you, This man went down to his house 
justified rather than the other” (vs. 144). The participle translated 
“justified” is in the perfect tense (δεδικαιωμένος), which points to the 
present result of a past action. The incident just preceding the parable 
(17:12-19) at least strongly suggests the same idea as to salvation, here 
also in Jesus’ closing words, “‘ Arise, and go thy way: thy faith hath made 
thee whole” or ‘“‘saved thee” (σέσωκέν oe). Again we find the perfect 
tense; and that physical healing alone was in the mind of the recorder 
of the incident seems hardly probable. In still other parts of the material 
the same thought appears. Though we may not press too far the 
details of parables, it seems hardly to be doing so to find the thought 
of a salvation in this life behind the father’s welcome of his returning 
son, and his words repeated again at the very close of the parable, ‘‘ For 
this my son was dead, and is alive again; he was lost, and is found”’; 
“‘For this thy brother was dead, and is alive again; and was lost, and 
is found”’ (15:24, 32). It would seem that the one at least who made 
the parable an answer to murmurings of Pharisees and scribes at Jesus’ 
associating with ‘‘sinners’” must have thought of it as indicating a 
present salvation for sinners, over which it suggested that all men 
should rejoice. This conclusion is strengthened and the same idea 
shown in the words applying the other two parables of the chapter, 15: 
7 and το. Itis to be noted that like those just quoted from the parable 
of the sons and their context, the concluding verses of these parables 
present rejoicing over the accomplished finding of what was lost (vss. 
6 and g). Then follows (vs. 7): “1 say unto you that even so there 
shall be joy in heaven over one sinner that repenteth, more than over 
ninety and nine just persons, who need no repentance’’; and (vs. 10): 


178 


THE SOURCES OF LUKE’S PEREAN SECTION 51 


“Even so, I say unto you, there is joy in the presence of the angels of God 
over one sinner that repenteth.” In both cases the use of the present 
participle (μετανοοῦντι) indicates that the repentance is not thought of 
as coming at a time before the rejoicing, and the suggestion is clear 
that at the time of repentance salvation is in some sense accomplished. 
The future (ἔσται) in the former verse (7) is apparently gnomic, with the 
same meaning as the corresponding present (γίνεται) in the second 
(vs. το). A further suggestion of the idea that there is a salvation that 
is present may be found in 12:15: “‘For a man’s life consisteth [ἐστίν] 
not in the abundance of the things which he possesseth.”’ This sug- 
gestion is carried farther in the possibly editorial vs. 21: “So is he that 
layeth up treasure for himself, and is not rich toward God.” Thus, to 
summarize, the thought of salvation as individual is found in eight of 
the nine sections (§§ 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9), the thought of it as present, 
with different degrees of clearness, in five (δὰ τ, 4, 7,8, 9). 

Proceeding now to the thought of Jesus shown in this material, we 
find that in two of the sections near the close, including the final one, he 
appears’ as one who brings salvation to men or brings them to the attain- 
ing of it (17:12-19, ὃ 7; 19:1-10, § 9). 

As we have also previously? noticed, the use of the name Jesus binds 
together three of the sections, occurring twice in § 6, twice in § 7, and 
three times in ὃ 9. In all the sections, except perhaps δὲ 7 and 9, the 
thought of Jesus as authoritative teacher or prophet is seen. In no part 
of the material does the messiahship of Jesus appear to be a point in 
questions And as we have previously‘ noted all its parts are alike in 
having nothing to say of a future activity of Jesus, or of a coming world- 
crisis, and in not containing the phrase “kingdom of God” or the words 
“kingdom,” “king,” or “reign.” 

Facts in regard to the form of the material also confirm the idea 
that it came from a single document. Every section but two consists 
in large part of one or more narrative parables. These two, δὲ 7 and 9g, 
are also of narrative material. Conversational or narrative introduc- 
tions precede the parables of each of the first six sections, and the other 
parable (§ 8) also has an introduction. Such conversational or narrative 
introductions to parables are not characteristic of Luke or of his Perean 
section as a whole, but are almost confined to the parables of this par- 


tSee p. 35. 2 Pp. 35 £. 
3 Even in the healing of the lepers, 17: 12-109, it is not said that Jesus healed them, 
the glory being given to God, with whom of course Jesus works. 


4Pp. 36 and 34. 
179 


52 HISTORICAL AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES 


ticular group. In $§1, 2, 4, 5, and 6 the form of the introduction is 
practically this: (1) a remark from some one or more present, (2) an 
answer from Jesus with a gnomic saying, then (3) the parable illustrating 
the saying. (In ὃ 4 there are three parables with a gnomic saying 
repeated after each of the first two, which all three illustrate.) 

In two of the three parables in § 4 the form of a question is used: 
““What manofyou ....dothnot....?” and, “what woman... . 
doth not ....?” Inevery other case the parable deals with “a certain 
man,” or in one case with ‘‘two men,” the words ᾿Ανθρωπός τις and 
λνθρωποι δύο (ὃ 8) appearing at the very beginning except in ὃ 2 where 
the Greek reads Συκῆν εἶχέν τις. So the sections connected by the form 
of opening of the parable are δὲ 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 8. 

In view, then, of all the facts about this group of material presented 
and referred to in this chapter, viz., Matthew’s use of it, its superior 
coherence, unity of thought and of purpose, likeness in point of view, 
and consistency of form throughout its sections, we seem justified in 
concluding that it existed in a single document before it became a part 
of Luke’s Perean section. We may call it the Judean document from 
the local point of view prevailing in its material.? 


Pp. 31 f, 45. 


180 


CHAPTER V 
THE SOURCES OF THE REST OF THE MATERIAL 


The characteristics of the two groups of material already examined 
should now be sought in the rest of the material with which the paper 
deals to see if the facts indicate, what seems antecedently probable, 
especially in the case of the document used by Matthew (cf. pp. το ff. 
and 43), that parts of it belonged to one or the other of the documents 
whose existence we have seen to be indicated. 

The characteristics to be looked for as belonging to the “‘first docu- 
ment,”’ used_ by Matthew also, are: the presence of sayings symbolic, 
enigmatical, or compressed; the presence of brief, readily detacha- 
ble sayings and incidents; in the connection of sentences, asyndeton 
almost as frequent as the use of καί and δέ, and other particles com- 
paratively frequent; the presence of generalized parables; parallelism 
of form or thought or both; in vocabulary, comparatively frequent 
occurrence of certain words; the absence of the name “‘Jesus”’ after its 
occurrence in ὃ τ; the local point of view being not that of Jerusalem; 
the presence of references to a future world-crisis; the presence of refer- 
ences to the kingdom of God; the appearance of the thought of salvation 
as future, and of salvation or rejection as affecting large groups collect- 
ively; the appearance of the thought of Jesus as authoritative leader, 
and of the idea that he is to have some special activity in the future; a 
strong interest in commandments of Jesus; special fitness for disciples 
and missionaries; and finally, in considerable parts, logical sequence. 

Characteristic of the “second” or Judean document for which we 
may look in the rest of the material are: logical sequence; unity in 
thought; “‘repentance’”’ as the way to salvation; a purpose to lead 
men to repentance that they may be saved; location of events near 
Jerusalem; a special interest in the use of property; interest in publi- 
cans; interest in the despised and hated; an ethical point of view which 
condemned selfishness and commended the love of one’s neighbor; the 
appearance of the ideas that God helps to bring about repentance and 
that repentance is the entering into a relation with God; the presentation 
of salvation as for the individual and dependent on his action, and as 
being a fact in the present (these ideas of salvation appear, less frequently, 
181] 53 


54 HISTORICAL AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES 


in the material of the other document); the presentation of Jesus as a 
savior and as a prophet (these conceptions also, more commonly the latter, 
appear in the other document); the use of narrative introductions to 
parables; the large use of narrative parables (one or two are found in the 
other group); and finally, the use of certain words found less frequently 
or not at all in the material assigned to the first document. 

The results of search for these characteristics in the portions of our 
material not already assigned to one or other of the documents is indi- 
cated in the following table. A check mark indicates the presence of the 
characteristic under the name of which it stands, in the material indi- 
cated by the figures opposite it near the center of the sheet. Increasing 
degrees of doubt as to such presence are indicated by the placing of a 
question mark in parentheses after the check, and by a question mark 
placed instead of a check. The “logical sequence” indicated is that 
with the next preceding and following material previously assigned to 
the “first document” in the case of the column to the right of the center, 
and to the “‘second document” in the case of that to the left. As will 
be seen, the characteristics of the “first document”’ are indicated to the 
right of the references and those of the “second”’ to the left. Where 
it has been decided that the evidence noted in the table indicates that 
a passage belonged to one or the other of the documents this is indicated 
by a cross placed opposite the reference to the right or left according as 
the indication is for the “first” or “second”? document and nearer or 
farther away as the evidence seems decisive or simply to create a proba- 
bility. The passages for which reasons have been found why Matthew 
might have omitted them if they were in his source (pp. τὸ ff.) are 
indicated bya circle(©). It maybe noted that all but two of the passages 
assigned in any way in the table to the document used by Matthew are 
so marked, and in both these cases one may perhaps suspect change in 
the text between the use of the document by Matthew and that by Luke. 
Thus in almost every case of assignment to the first document two lines 
of evidence converge to confirm the assignment. The circles were 
inserted after the rest of the table was complete, and were not considered 
in making assignments as indicated by the crosses. In the “vocabulary” 
columns the figures indicate how many of the words listed on pp. 25 f., 
as of greater frequency in one or the other of the groups of passages 
that we have decided came from the two documents respectively, occur 
in the passages in whose line they stand. 

In estimating the evidence presented in this table it must be remem- 
bered that some of the columns, notably those of “Jesus as prophet” 


182 


Manyoeran ἢ ἢ ἢ τ τ τὴ κ ἔν Smee a Ato apa ants : ie ae Ce a oe - Ὁ ὁ Us Ὁ 
“feck a) || ἢ ὁ eC oh a δι ΟΣ τ ᾧ προς ἐξ ain ae Se Eo SS 


sunt | ee le lee oie ἢ Repl sama every te >> oer ps > > 
aouanbas ε yee = ΞΕ 
Ἔν | ie Te IS) cree rr ir Oak lr Leer cae Rae Aap IS BP ea 
amy |. Se ees = : - 
aming | 2: ; Mae tbe! Bee κατ ἐς al On ες ns Sap > 


sroprory aanny 

-Hoyiny ποῦ 223 TeeToRe 
sdnoisy Sons = 
Sunsayy ‘ 
GONTALES 5 ἜΣ Ὡς : : soe ot Ἑ Ξ i : Ξ 
any Ξ ἔνα aes se Κλ ῖσς ᾷ oes ke : rate > 


v 

Υ 
ἢν 

᾿ 


wopsury ay, |: τ 


sista, ΟΝ, τὺ eae a ge 2 : : : ae 2 ; 3 ᾽ tii, = 5 
oinqng 901, Sen se if ἧς ἘΣ CS Giese IRR MBO Mm aT E " Te ων : Siete ne) te iS: 
1901 >> = 


(CRE || Se ΣΕ rane at are mea 


Furauisagq ye 
aoug ,,snsef,, 


Ss 
Axejnqu20.\ > > >> > CSS 
Ὁ τ δ ὁ Ὁ ὃ 


Ἰῃ ὅποι 1, pur 


ποῖ] = 
SSMU ACES | aria er ai ey ieee aie ier edi 


VQ) νῷ 


νῶν 


syqnaeg 
paztvs9495 


uojapudsy os - ον. . τ ἤν : ss r τ ω 5 
:εϑοπογαος jo aE ao fs earn eee eee ; cre Ae pas 
snoKyasmsCS) ees ee ἃ BA E Ἢ Be Sane τον Tes > 


squepiouy 
pur siuing 
9] θυ 
Aypray jog p 
ssuitts | = > > 
passaaduos) 5 
jonrwsiug x 
πηοασιῖς. Ξ Fe = 
dortsstuy, 
hes See TOTONEMO 
doy uostay 
γαϑαι 
τος 1841 
ΟἹ Aiqnqoid ὃς 
7 quewns0q. 


IW OL eae x Χ 


ν 
ν 
ν 
al 
Vv 
ν 
ν 
Vv 
ν 
Vv 
Vv 
ν 
Vv 
ν 
ay 
Vv 


Stee eee 


> > ie ΠΣ ΜῊ ae 
ee : es SY σον a UP 
TPA see ΤΡ ἐσ ΠΩΣ beer sneer ns Pernice ere. sel tt 
oO 0000 ;O0000000000 


6 Ὁ il 
Oly ¥ 


x 
x 
"|X 
x 
x 


LUKE 
τοῦ 
17 
18-20 
5-8 
20a 
36 
53754 
II-12 
13: 10-16 
17 
22 


] 


quaunso, ae Saas Ἐπ πὶ Saas aC ΤΣ = z τ ΕΙΣ 

puosas Ὧν Sara δὲ ΜῊΝ Ἃ Χ πο 4s ec bea Ki AND fags Wa at SL aie ee x 

quaumnsocy 
puosas ee ee 5 5 ἢ Bee ἐς : 

07 Ayquqoig 5 ty . ' Mss DS 


souenbas 
τῦϑιϑο 


aourquaday,, πὰ νον δ es 
ἡ ϑποι Gy set ete 
ut Ayu elt Ae So grees Ὁ 


Vv 
? 


aourjuaday ΟἹ 
pray oy ται ν᾽ 


twayesna9f : Ξ 5 5 Fe Rey ao Ἐπ Ὁ : Se te Sein 5 ν᾿ 
πο πο τ ΕΝ an gc a a ἀν τος τ ἘΣ Raumati ok ines 
“‘uvopnf . ᾿ ᾿ ᾿ ᾿ 5 é 3 τ τι τὴ τ 2 E ᾿ 


Ayadorg jo 
ASQ) Ul η501970] 


? 
2 
Vv 
ν 
? 
ν 


parry i | Peotone Pee ia ea Ε τ ΤΩΣ Fay Σ ε dh ec ἢ 
Ῥαθ pasidsacy ον ᾿ς τς a har ἢ ke Pach eee q 4 we Sy a GaP. Rare ΟΣ 
9.1 Ul 75919}1} . . . . . . . Ὁ - - - 


= = = 
joqusion |: aay tone eae Σ eeu tee ee a ee ee Se 
soy |: Pete aed he aa 2 : : Cee ; ; : = Ray Ξ Seis 
pauwapuosy 3 aE 
Ssauy syd —~ 
Bees ΄ τσ = tien 


Pop 
Ita ΠΟΙΟῚ 


Suuajuq uy ~ 
pop Aq padiay " 
aourjuaday - z 
Rea Gans rae Sane ee : ΕΝ, απ Ξ : : ξ a. 
Sod eM sth ay αν ey ace dae ΟΝ eA is hes 


pur 


IGA he, 


PEN | ao Sar iS a ec προ τ  - Bin ἢ we Leer bt “-- 


Bender || ip sey. Dee ΤῊ ΤΕΣ ΩΣ: φτοπο ιν "τ i τ τὺ τ τὸν ἢ τε τ ρος τ ΟΝ, 


: TMONRALLS is ae . δ : oe ὦ- or : : a 
darsurag snsof cor Ce re Bet HAS 3 2 * a : 
SO[GeITT 0} 3 : Ξ : 
ὉΟΠΌΠΡΟΣΊ] 5 ὮΝ δ: om τ᾽ ΞῸ 
DATIUIAUNY 


Satan || Biss ee eee ΡΝ See an ere eM ςτὸ τ τς 
CUS, || Gey Pa ea eS ae a Og eel ime Re ame Siar Ey der oa Gas 


An arrow (<< ) indicates that something occurs that is not in general found in the material assigned to the document on the side of which it stands. 


“δέκα six times 


BS ae te fe 
Axvynqnso A ἴω Ξ Σ Ed ae YT ΘΟ : 
> + τ - Ss ig Ξ Seat ea Huta ὦ ὦ oman 
οὗ SHAH Ss OO Ne Gh οἱ δα οὐ 20 2 eee RY 


THE SOURCES OF LUKE’S PEREAN SECTION 5b 


and ‘‘salvation as present,” indicate features that belong much less 
exclusively to one of the groups than do others. In the case of most of 
the passages it will be seen that the evidence is with decided preponder- 
ance on the side of one document or the other. Of the several apparent 
exceptions to this some are seen not to be such when the slightly distinct- 
ive nature of certain columns, as mentioned above, is noted. This is 
Smevedse With T1:27-28: I1:40-41; 12:52 ΠῚ 14.124 35; 10:3-12; 
19:12-27. To remove 13:23-27 from the apparent exceptions the 
further fact comes in that the inclusion of 13:10-16 and 14:1- in the 
second document destroys the logical sequence that without them could 
be found for the passage in that document, assuming no change of order 
at this point. The rest, with one exception, are very brief, consisting 
of a single verse or less, and they will now be taken up along with those 
passages, real exceptions, in which characteristics of neither group are 
found sufficiently numerous to warrant assigning them to either docu- 
ment on that basis. These passages are also brief, seldom exceeding 
the limits of a single verse. 

The passages in Luke’s Perean section, 9:51—18:14 and 19:1-28, 
that have not now been assigned with some degree of probability to one 
of the two documents are as follows: 9:51; 10:1, 17; I1:1, 15, 200, 37- 
ΠΡ Ἢ; ΤΣ: τὸ, 21, 41-420, 540; 13:17, 22; 14:6, 7, 12-14,°15, 25; 
16:14; 17:5, 11, 25, 276, Ὁ; 18:14b; and 19:11, 28. In looking for the 
probable origin of these we may observe the probability’ established by 
the manner of Matthew’s use of the material, putting none of it into the 
Perean ministry, but placing it in the Galilean ministry and the Passion 
Week, that the document used by Matthew was without marks to indi- 
cate to which period of the life of Jesus its events belonged. That such 
passages should have been composed and inserted by one who was 
not attempting to produce anything like an account of Jesus’ life seems 
distinctly less probable than that Luke himself in incorporating the 
material into his gospel should have supplied them. Ui They are to be 
found in 9:51; 13:22; 17:11; 19:11; and 19:28. (Though from its 
connection with material assigned to a document not used by Matthew 
a different origin might be suspected for 17:11 from that of the rest, 
its similarity to them seems to make probable a similar origin.) The 
probability that these verses were composed by Luke is further strength- 
ened by the fact that for all of them there is a basis to be found in the 
corresponding part of Mark, and in every case but that of 19:11 in 
statements of Mark omitted in their connection by Luke in his parallel 


t Burton, op. cit., p. 49; Sharman, op. cit., pp. 3 f. 
183 


(a 


56 HISTORICAL AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES 


passages.t Likenesses in language are also to be found between these 
passages in Luke and those in Mark. But if these passages were added 
by Luke on the basis of suggestions in Mark, it seems probable that some, 
at least, of the other passages for which basis can be found in Mark were 
also added by Luke. Some basis in Mark’s Perean section can be 
found for Luke 10:17; 11:29a; 11:53-54; 12:10 12:540; 13:17; ΠΕ 
14225." 

With most of the passages cited as having a basis in Mark some 
suggestion, more or less definite, is to be found in the context to account 
for its insertion in Luke. In about half of them indeed part of the pas- 
sage itself seems to have been suggested by the context. Thus in 9:51 
αὐτὸς τὸ πρόσωπον ἐστήρισεν τοῦ πορεύεσθαι εἰς ᾿Ιερουσαλήμ. anticipates 
the statement of vs. 53, τὸ πρόσωπον αὐτοῦ ἣν πορευόμενον εἰς Ἴερου- 
σαλήμ. In 10:17 the words ascribed to the seventy-two, “Lord, 
even the demons are subject to us in thy name,” might have been placed 
here in view of the words that follow in vss. 18-20: “1 beheld Satan 
fallen, Sr. 0/2 I have given you authority ... . over all the power 
of the enemy. .... But in this rejoice not, that the spirits are subject 
to you.” In 11:209a the reference to the crowds might have been sug- 
gested by the discourse following on “‘this generation”’ and further by 
the mention of a crowd in vs. 27, if that also was not inserted by Luke. 
The statement of activity against Jesus on the part of the scribes and 
Pharisees in 11:53-54 comes with exceeding naturalness after the dis- 
course of Jesus in vss. 39-52. A suggestion for the insertion of 12:1 
is not found nearer than vss. 13 ff. The insertion of reference to crowds 
in 12: 5464 might seemingly have been suggested by the nature of the 
following material, vss. 54-57, evidently not addressed to disciples, as 
the preceding discourse, from vs. 22 on, is indicated as having been. 
The first half of 13:17 might seemingly have been suggested by the 
description of the incident that precedes, the insertion of the latter half 
by the nature of the parables that follow. 

A suggestion is perhaps found in the context to account for the inser- 
tion of 13:22 at this precise point in that the thought of the spread of the 
leaven through the meal (vs. 21) may have suggested the referring to the 
progress of Jesus ‘“‘through cities and villages, teaching.’”’ The indi- 


* With Luke 9:51 cf. Mark 10: 1a, 32; with Luke 13: 22, Mark 10:1¢, 32; with Luke 
17:11, Mark 10:32; with Luke 19:11, Mark τσ: τα; and with Luke 19: 28, Mark 10:32. 
2 With Luke 10:17 cf. Mark 6:13a, absent in Luke’s parallel, and Mark 6:30; 
with Luke 11:29a¢, Mark 10:10; with Luke 11:53-54, Mark 10:2; and with Luke 
I2:1d@, 12: 546, 13:17, and 14:25, Mark 10:1). 
184 


THE SOURCES OF LUKE’S PEREAN SECTION 57 


cation of the coming of crowds and of Jesus’ addressing them in 14:25 
might have been suggested by the change that seems to take place at 
this point from address to an individual to address to a number.’ Both 
the insertion of the geographical note in 17:11 and the mention of 
Samaria in it may have been suggested by the statement in vs. 16 that 
one of the lepers was a Samaritan. The mention of Jesus’ entering into 
a village in vs. 12 may have suggested the mention of his journeying. 
Suggestion for the insertion of 19:11 by Luke is clearly to be found 
in the parable that it introduces. With Jesus’ near approach to Jerusa- 
lem as the next thing that lay before him in Mark to incorporate (Mark 
11:1), and with it the cry of the people, ‘Blessed is he that cometh in 
the name of the Lord. Blessed is the coming kingdom of our father 
David” (Mark 11:9-10), he might readily, it seems, interpret this 
parable remaining in his other source as addressed to meet this situation. 
It is the departure of the nobleman to a far country to receive the 
kingdom (19:12) that seems to give the basis for this interpretation. 
The fact that a large part of the material that in Luke is introduced 
by a verse (10:1) which indicates that it was addressed to seventy-two 
is in Matthew placed close to the introduction that reads: ‘‘These twelve 
Jesus sent forth, and charged them, saying,”’ seems to make it probable 
that the document containing this material as used by Matthew did not 
contain the indication of those addressed as givenin Luke1o:1. Further, 
the special fitness of this verse for an account of Jesus’ life, the presence 
in it of a number of words and phrases characteristic of Luke,? and the 
apparent reminiscence of Mark 6:7 seem to point to Luke rather than 
an earlier editor of the material for its insertion. Moreover, without 
this verse the connection of thought seems excellent, especially if we 
assume that instead of “And he said to them,” as in Luke 10:2, the 
document read as in Matthew: “He said to his disciples.”” Thus the 
improvement of the connection can hardly have acted as a motive to 
induce the insertion. A motive in the case of Luke can be found in his 
having previously (g:1-6) recorded the addressing by Jesus to the 
twelve of instructions very similar to some of those that follow. The 
probability that it was Luke who inserted 10:1 creates an almost equal 
probability that the mention of the return of the seventy-two in 10:17 


t Note “He said to him,” in vs. 16, and “which of you” in vs. 28 with which vss. 
26-27 seem closely connected. 


ε 


2In addition to those listed by Hawkins, μετὰ ταῦτα, ὁ κύριος used of Jesus in 
narrative, and ἕτερος, we may note ἀναδείκνυμι, Luke once, Acts once, only, in the New 
Testament; ἤμελλον, in Luke alone of the Synoptic Gospels, 4 times; and τόπος, 


Matt. το, Mark το, Luke το, Acts 17. 
185 


58 HISTORICAL AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES 


was also inserted by Luke rather than belonging to a document at this 
point. In 10:17 also words characteristic of Luke are found: ὑποστρέφω, 
not in Matthew or Mark, Luke, 21 times, Acts, 11, Paul, 1, rest of New 
Testament, 2; δαιμόνιον, Matthew, 11 times, Mark, 13, Luke, 23, rest 
of New Testament, 16. ὑποτάσσω is not found in other gospels, Luke, 
3, Paul, 22, rest of New Testament, 12. The fact that the passage in 
Mark which seems to be reflected (6:13) follows closely on the one, 6:7, 
of which there seems to be reminiscence in Luke 10:1, gives a further 
hint that the two verses in Luke have a common origin, and are probably 
from Luke himself. 

The partial parallel to 11: 37-38 in Mark 7:1-5, a passage not used 
in the parallel portion of Luke, what follows being also somewhat 
similar in the two cases, suggests that these verses were here introduced 
by Luke from the suggestion in Mark, Jesus’ eating with a Pharisee being 
possibly suggested to him by the source of 14:1, or of 7:36, which is more 
similar inits expressions. A number of expressions characteristic of Luke 
occur in 11:37-38; those listed by Hawkins are ἐν τῷ with infinitive, 
and épwrdw, ᾿Αριστάω occurs in the New Testament only once in 
Luke and twice in John, and épwrdw ὅπως only twice in Luke and once 
in Acts; θαυμάζω, Matthew, 7 times, Mark, 4, Luke, 12, John, 6, Acts, 5, 
rest of New Testament, 8; ἄριστον, Matthew, 1, and Luke, 2, only, in the 
New Testament. However, it is possible that in substance at least these 
verses stood in the document used by Luke, and if so they probably stood 
in that used by Matthew also, as insertion by another than Luke has little 
to make it appear probable. In view of the reference to John’s teaching as 
suggesting that of Jesus, it seems improbable that 11:1 is an editorial ad- 
dition. In view of its connection and its lack of fitness for separate trans- 
mission, it should therefore probably be assigned to the “‘first”’ document. 

The context, 14:8-11 and 1, might, it seems, have given sufficient 
suggestion for the construction of 14:7, and that Luke rather than 
another was its author seems to be indicated by the large number that 
it contains, for its length, of expressions characteristic of Luke.t The 
facts of language suggest that in 14:12 also considerable rewriting or 
shaping by Luke has taken place.? That the characteristics of the first 

τ ἔλεγεν δέ: πρός, used of speaking to, bis; λέγω παραβολήν; from Hawkins’ list. 
᾿Ἐκλέγομαι, Matt.,o, Mark, 1, Luke, 4 (WH), Acts, 7, rest of New Testament, 9; ἐπέχω, 
Luke, 1, Acts, 2, Paul, 2, only, in the New Testament. 

2It contains from Hawkins’ list of words and phrases characteristic of Luke’s 
Gospel, ἔλεγεν δέ, δὲ καί, φίλος, συγγενής, and πλούσιος; also ἄριστον, Matt., 1, 
Luke, 2, only, in the New Testament; γείτων, Luke, 3, John, 1, only, in the New Tes- 
tament; ἀντικαλέω, not in LXX, only here in the New Testament; ἀνταπόδομα, not 


classical, only here and once in Romans in the New Testament. 
186 


THE SOURCES OF LUKE’S PEREAN SECTION 59 


document are well represented in 18:146 is not strange in view of its 
being a repetition of a sentence assigned to that document as closely 
paralleled in Matthew. Reason for thinking that it owes its present 
position to Luke may be found in the fact that it seems to fit as a tran- 
sition from the parable preceding to the incident from Mark which 
follows in Luke better than either as a mere summary of the parable or 
as a transition to the next material from the same source (19:1 ff.). 

There are a number of passages remaining to be considered that 
are alike in that they include or report remarks of others than Jesus. 
We may first notice 12:41-42a; 14:15; 16:14; and 17:5. The first 
gives a question from Peter, the last a request from “the apostles,” the 
second a beatitude from a table-companion, and the third is a statement 
that the Pharisees heard and scoffed at him. 

Both the first and the last are rich in expressions characteristic of 
Luke.t Examples of the insertion of Peter’s name by Luke in using 
material from Mark are found in Luke 8:45, parallel to Mark 5:31; 22: 
8, parallel to Mark 14:12, 13 and Matthew 26:17-18; and in the inserted 
verse 9:32 in the transfiguration story. The form in the two cases here 
being considered is very similar: 12:41-42a, Εἶπεν δὲ ὁ Πέτρος Κύριε 


πρὸς ἡμᾶς. ... καὶ εἶπεν 6 κύριος: 17:5-6a, Kai εἶπαν of ἀπόστολοι τῷ 
κυρίῳ ἸΤρόσθες ἡμῖν. . . . εἶπεν δὲ ὁ κύριος. It seems probable that in 


both cases Luke was responsible for the insertion rather than that these 
passages stood in his document. 

In 14:15, however, no expression characteristic of Luke is found nor 
a word that approaches being such. Moreover, the characteristics noted 
in the table, after p. 54, strongly connect it with the first document. Its 
most important point of contact with the second document is its seeming 
to furnish the appropriate occasion for the parable (from that document) 
that follows it. Its connection with vss. 26 ff. is not so evidently 
good, but seems at least possible. The relation of 14:15 to 14:26f. is 
somewhat like that of 13:23 to 24 ff., of 11:27 to 28, of 9:57 to 58, of 
9:59 to 60, and of 9:61 to 62. All of these latter have been previously 
assigned to the ‘‘first document,” and 9:57-58 and 59-60 clearly belong 
to it from the close parallel in Matthew. If we include with 14:15 the 
formula of address, ‘‘But he said to him,” at the beginning of vs. τό, the 
connection with vs. 26 appears to be about as good as that with the 
parable in vss. 16 ff. The transition of thought from that of enjoying 


tOf those listed by Hawkins 12:41-42a has εἶπεν δέ, πρός used of speaking to 
(bis), λέγω παραβολήν, and ὁ κύριος used of Jesus in narrative; 17:5 has ἀπόστολος, 
ὁ κύριος used of Jesus in narrative, and προστίθημι. 17:6a has εἶπεν δέ and ὁ κύριος, 
used of Jesus in narrative. 
187 


60 HISTORICAL AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES 


the blessings of the kingdom of God to that of being Christ’s disciple 
would not, it seems, have been a very difficult one for the compiler of the 
first document, in view of passages like 9: 59-62 and 13:23-30. Itseems 
probable, therefore, that this verse belonged to the ‘‘first document.” 
However, as the material assigned to that document does not in the near 
context mention Jesus’ being at a meal, τῶν συνανακειμένων may have 
been inserted by Luke in view of 14:1 and the sayings about meals in 
vss. 8-24. We have already noticed the probability that he introduced 
14:7, and τῷ κεκληκότι αὐτόν in vs. 12 might also have been thus 
introduced." 

Passing now to 16:14, we find again the possibility of a brief inser- 
tion by Luke in view of the context. That something like this verse 
stood in the second document as an introduction to vs. 15 seems prob- 
able. The two words φιλάργυροι ὑπάρχοντες, however, seem to fit 
better in the present connection of the verse than with it placed in its 
order in the second-document material. Moreover, ὑπάρχω is strongly 
characteristic of Luke (and Acts),? and φιλάργυρος is found in the New 
Testament only here and in II Tim. 3:2. These facts suggest the inser- 
tion of these two words by Luke. But the verse as a whole does not 
fit especially well in the second document, and it may be considered 
possible that the whole verse was inserted by Luke. 

There is another brief passage that gives a question from Jesus’ 
disciples, 17:37a, 6. It fits very naturally‘ into its context in the first- 
document material, and as it has no expression characteristic of Luke 
or word nearly so, it seems probable that it formed part of the document 
used by Matthew, for whose omission of it a possible reason has been 
found.’ It is conceivable that questions introduced by Luke were sug- 
gested by this one in his source. On the other hand, it is conceivable 
that this also was inserted by Luke. 

The close parallel to Mark 3:22 in Luke 11:15 might lead us to sus- 
pect that Luke used Mark as his source. Two facts point in the other 
direction, however, first that Matthew in 12:24 has a considerably closer 
parallel to this than to Mark, and second that Matthew in 9:34 has a 
closer parallel to Mark 3:22 than in 12:24. However, in Matthew 9: 
32-34 he appears from the closeness of similarity to be using the source 


τ Cf. von Soden, History of Early Christian Literature, p. 172. 
2 Hawkins, op. cit., p. 23. 
3 ἐκμυκτηρίζω is used in the New Testament only here and in Luke 23:35, where 
it is substituted for Mark’s ἐμπαίζω. 
4 Cf. Sharman, οὐ. cit., p. 133. Sl BT 
188 


THE SOURCES OF LUKE’S PEREAN SECTION 61 


of Luke r1:14-15. That Matthew had before him two versions of the 
charge as well as of the discourse that follows seems therefore rather 
probable. The absence of the word Beelzebul in Matthew 9:34 and 
the varying position of the article in Matthew and Luke suggest that 
both independently inserted this word from Mark, one before and one 
after the article. Matt. 9:34 would then give an exact reproduction 
of the source of Luke 11:15, and Matt. 12:24 might have resulted from 
a contraction, such as Matthew was accustomed to make, of Mark 3:22, 
with perhaps some influence from the source in Luke 11:15. With 11: 
17a present, some such charge seems to be needed in Luke’s form. We 
cannot now definitely decide whether it was in the first document or 
inserted by Luke from Mark, with suggestion from the source of 11: 18c. 

Three of the four passages still remaining unassigned are alike in 
giving sayings that seem to be attributed to Jesus. 

On the basis of its characteristics 12: 21 should apparently be assigned 
to the second document, though the possibility remains that it was 
inserted either in the combining of the documents or later, for it seems 
to help the connection somewhat as it stands, but to injure it in the non- 
Matthean document. Its absence from certain manuscripts lends some 
support to this conjecture. 

Perhaps 17:25 should be assigned to the first document, occupying 
as it does a position similar to that of 17:33, shown by parallel in 
Matthew to have belonged to it, and possessing some of the character- 
istics of the material assigned to that document. Its suggestion of a 
speedy consummation is found also in 18:8, in a passage assigned to the 
first document. But its material and much of its language could have 
come from Mark 8:31, and its interruption of the portrayal of the day 
suggests that it is a later insertion.' 

Luke 14:12-14, which has many of the characteristics of both 
documents, if we consider that vs. 12 was largely shaped by Luke, 
seems to belong rather ‘to the first document along with the verses 
preceding and following. The connection of thought in each document 
seems to be best preserved by assigning these verses for substance to 
the document used by Matthew. 

Luke 14:6 may be thought to be a touch added by Luke somewhat 
similarly to 13:17. Inits language ἰσχύω with the infinitive is charac- 
teristic of Luke, occurring in the New Testament only twice each in 
Matthew and Mark, once in John, eight times in Luke, and four times 
in Acts. ᾿Ανταποκρίνομαι occurs in the New Testament only here and 


τ Cf. Sharman, op. cit., pp. 130 f., note. 
189 


62 HISTORICAL AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES 


once in Romans. This verse may have been inserted along with vs. 7 
as part of a smoother transition between vss. 5 and 8 ff. On the other 
hand, it is possible that it stood in the second document, though there is 
only its possible logical connection in that material to indicate that it did. 

There are a few brief phrases and clauses that we may suspect were 
inserted by Luke on the basis of suggestions from Mark. These are: 
in 9:57, πορευομένων αὐτῶν ἐν τῇ 680, and 10:38, Ἔν δὲ τῷ πορεύεσθαι 
αὐτοὺς αὐτὸς εἰσῆλθεν εἰς κώμην twa;? and in 12:134 ἐκ τοῦ OxAov,? 
In 13:18 Ἔλεγεν οὖν injures the connection in the first document, and 
may have been inserted along with vs. 17 by Luke, or possibly by an 
earlier combiner of the two documents. The statement of address in 
12:22a@ is superfluous in the first document and, as it contains εἶπεν δέ 
and πρός used of speaking to, both strongly characteristic of Luke, may 
have been introduced by him. 

In τ: τῷ the phrase ἐν αὐτῷ τῷ καιρῷ is characteristic of Luke and 
especially appropriate only in a narrative work such as none of the docu- 
ments was. We may therefore think it probable that Luke inserted it. 

To summarize, we may say that while absolute certainty in the 
assignment of these brief portions is not attainable, most of them may be 
assigned with more or less confidence to Luke, who had in many cases 
a basis for them in the Gospel of Mark, and in a number a suggestion 
or more from the context in the document he was using. A few of them 
we are inclined to assign, for substance at least, to the document used by 
Matthew (11:15; 14:12-14, 15; 17:37¢, b),and others may have come 
from it (11:37-38 and 17:25). Luke 12:21 may have been in the non- 
Matthean document, and traces of that document are perhaps to be 
found in 14:6 and 16:14. 

As a result of this study it appears that the material found in Luke’s 
Perean section, Luke 9:51—18:14 and 19:1-28, came for the most part 
from two documents. Of those documents only one was used in the 
composition of Matthew’s Gospel. The assignments of material are as 
follows: The contents of the document used by Matthew included the 
material of Luke 9357-60; 10:2—16¢, 21-24; 11:2. 4, 9-13, 14, τὸ τὴν 
18b, 19-20, 23-26, 29-35, 30, 42-52; 12:2-10, 22b-31, 33-34, 39-40, 
426-46, τ -55, 58. κὸ; .13 18-25, 28-20; 34-35; I4:11, 20-27; saeane. 
16-18; 17:1, 30-4, 6, 23-24, 26-27, 30, 33-35, and 37c,;3 probably 
also, as similar in characteristics, that of Luke 9:61-62; 10:168, 
38-42; 11: 8, 176, 18d, δ, 21 22, 30; 12:10, ΤΙ 12,32; 35-30, “7 19 
40. 50; 13:90. 53; 14:28. 11; 17:2, 30) 7 1, 20-22, 28-20, πο 

Cf. Mark 10:17 and 32, and 9:30. 2 Cf. Mark 10:10. 3P. 24. 

190 


THE SOURCES OF LUKE’S PEREAN SECTION 63 


18:1-8;! rather probably also, on the basis of similar characteristics, 
that of Luke 9: 52-56; 10:18-203 11:27—28, 40-41; 12:540-—57;/13:23-27; 
14:8-10, 34-35;?. 16:1-12; 19:12-27;3 probably also, as otherwise 
shown, that of Luke 14:12-14;4 14:15;5 and 17:37a, b;° and possibly 
also that of Luke 11:15, 37-38; and 17:25.7 The other document 
appears to have consisted, in part at least, of the material now found in 
mento; 30-47 > (12213-20513 1-9; Ἰ4:1ὸ 24; Ἰ5ῚῚ 22; 16215, 19-37; 
17:12-19; 18:9-14a; and 19:1~-10;§ probably also, as similar in char- 
acteristics, that of Luke 10:25-29, and 13:10-16;? rather probably, for 
the same reason, that of Luke 12:21; and 14:1-5;' and possibly also 
that of Luke 14:6 and 16:14." 

Each of these documents as we have reconstructed it has in general 
a comprehensible order, which is with one exception” the order in which 
the material now stands in Luke. This fact strongly confirms the 
supposition, based on his careful adherence to the order of Mark in 
the portions he derived from that source, that Luke in dealing with the 
material of this section also made little change in order. 

For the “first document,” that used by Matthew, parts of the order 
are made certain by agreement in the two gospels. The longest unin- 
terrupted passage in which the order of our material in the two gospels 
agrees consists of ten verses in Luke and nine in Matthew (Luke 12: 22- 
31= Matt. 6:25-33). Such agreements in order in the two gospels, in 
which there is intervening material in neither, are found in Luke g:57- 
60= Matt. 8:19-22; Luke 10:2= Matt. 9:37-38; Luke 10:5-6= Matt. 
10:12-13; Luke 10:13-15= Matt. 11:21-23a; Luke 10:21-22=Matt. 
11:25-27; Luke 11:9-11= Matt. 7: 7-10; Luke 11:14= Matt. 12: 22-234; 
Luke 11:17-23= Matt. 12:25-30; Luke 11:24-26= Matt. 12:43-45¢; 
Luke 11: 29-30= Matt. 12: 39-40; Luke 11:31 = Matt. 12:42; Luke 11:32 
= Matt. 12:41; Luke 11:34-35= Matt. 6: 22-23; Luke 11: 39-41= Matt. 
23:25-26; Luke 11:43= Matt. 23:6-7; Luke 11: 49-51= Matt. 23:34-36; 
Luke 12: 2-9= Matt. 10: 26-33; Luke 12: 11-12= Matt. 12:19-20; Luke 
12:22-31= Matt. 6: 25-33; Luke 12: 33-34= Matt. 6: 19-21; Luke 12: 39— 
40= Matt. 24:43-44; Luke 12:42-46= Matt. 24:45-51; Luke 12: 58-59= 
Matt. 5:25-26; Luke 13:18-21= Matt. 13:31-33; Luke 13:34-35= 


t Pp. 52 fi. 

2 14:34b-35 are also partially paralleled in Matthew. 

3 Pp. 53 ff. TIDE ΤΩΣ 

4P. ὅτ. Deny, ie) ti 

5 Pp. 59 f. 10 Pp. 61 and 53 ff. 
ΟΡ ὅοἱ 11 Pp. 61 f. and 60. 
7 Pp. 60 f., 58, and 61. 42/See ΡΟ 22 ἢ 


191 


64 HISTORICAL AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES 


Matt. 23:37-39; Luke 14:26-27= Matt. 10:37-38; Luke 14:34b-35= 
Matt 5:13) and c; Luke 17:23-24= Matt. 24:26-27; Luke 17: 26-27 
= Matt. 24:37-39a; Luke 17:34-35= Matt. 24:40-41. 

The evidence for the order of this document is nearly as strong where 
material intervenes in Luke but not in Matthew. Thus the order of the 
“first document” is clearly shown in Luke 10:10-11a, 12= Matt. το: 
14-15; Luke 11:15, 17-23= Matt. 12:24-30; Luke 12:39-40, 426-46 
= Matt. 24:43-51; Luke 12:51, 53= Matt. 10:34-35; Luke 17:26-27, 
30= Matt. 24:37-39. The same is true of passages in which material 
not from this source intervenes in Matthew but not in Luke. Thus 
the order of the first document is shown in Luke 11:2-4, parallel to 
Matt. 6:9-10a, 11-13¢, Luke 10: 23-24, parallel to Matt. 13:16-17; and 
Luke 17: 3-4, parallel to Matt. 18:15, 21-22. Possibly the same may be 
said of Luke 13:24—20, parallel to Matt. 7:13-14, 23; 8:11-12; Luke 
II:14-15, parallel to Matt. 12:22-23a, 24; and Luke 11:47-51, parallel 
to Matt. 23:29-31, 34-36, but in each of these cases there is the 
possibility that some other source is responsible for part of the material 
in Matthew, and therefore only slight weight can be placed on their 
evidence as to the order of the “first document.” 

It is noteworthy that in the discourse of instruction to the disciples, 
Matt. 9:37—10:40, in which fourteen separate passages from the first 
document are found, only in the case of four brief sayings does Matthew’s 
order vary from that of Luke, except where he follows the order of parallel 
material in Mark. ‘Behold I send you forth as sheep in the midst of 
wolves,” instead of being placed before the instructions, as in Luke, is 
given after the dealing with those who do not receive the messengers. 
In its place near the beginning is put, seemingly from the source of the 
first paragraph in Luke, the direction to say that the kingdom of heaven 
has come near, and to heal the sick. This is seemingly a natural change 
in order in view of the general and important character of these direc- 
tions. So likewise the reserving of the saying, “He that receiveth you, 
receiveth me,” for the conclusion of the whole discourse, after all the 
rest of the relevant material from the document had been used, seems 
a very natural rearrangement for Matthew to have made. The only 
other change is the use of the saying, ‘“‘The laborer is worthy of his food,” 
three verses earlier than it is found in Luke. Moreover, the variation 
from Luke’s order caused by following that of Mark in the parallel to 
Luke 12:11-12 involves no great displacement, but only, apparently, 
the modification of the wording of a saying from Mark, under the influ- 


t Mark was used in vs. 14. 
192 


THE SOURCES OF LUKE’S PEREAN SECTION 65 


ence of the form in a document from which it came into Luke after eight 
more verses. With these five exceptions, then, the material in this dis- 
course common to Matthew and Luke’s Perean section occurs in the same 
order in both, a fact which makes strongly for this being the original 
order, i.e., the order in the “first document.”’ And the nature of the 
exceptions makes it seem probable that in all the cases Luke, rather than 
Matthew, has preserved the order of the document. 

In the other long discourse collections of Matthew the topical 
arrangement has largely removed possible confirmations of any order 
as that of the document, but it may be noted that in the Sermon on the 
Mount the teachings on prayer occur in the same order in Matthew as 
in Luke: Matt 6:9-13; 7:7-11; Luke 11:2-4, 9-13. The discourse 
against the Pharisees, Matt., chap. 23, has some correspondences in 
order in the two gospels which are, or may be, significant for the order 
of the document: Matt. 23:25-27 is parallel to Luke 11:39-41, 44; and 
vide supra on Matt. 23:29-31, 34-36, parallel to Luke 11:47-51. And 
the eschatological discourse in Matt., chap. 24, has vss. 26-27 and 37-41 
in the same order in which that material appears in Luke 17:23-24, 
26-27, 34-35. The woes upon the unrepentant cities and the thanks- 
giving to the Father occur in the same order in the two gospels (Matt. 
II:2I-23a, 25-27; Luke 10:13-15, 21-22); and so of the Beelzebul 
incident and the saying about blasphemy (Matt. 12:22 ff.; Luke rr: 
ἘΠ: T2:70). 

Taken all together, the evidence on order gives considerable basis 
for the supposition that in general the present order in Luke was that of 
the material in the first document, though to a large extent this must 
remain a supposition. 

For the material of the second document no such objective test as 
to order is available, and the internal one of logical sequence is the only 
support we have in retaining and slightly modifying the present order 
of the material in reconstructing that document. 

Whether material from either of these documents is to be found in 
our gospels outside of Luke’s Perean section and the similar passages in 
Matthew is a question whose answer lies outside the scope of this paper. 

The reconstructed documents, so far as their material is found in 
Luke’s Perean section, follow. 


193 


00 HISTORICAL AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES 


“FIRST” DOCUMENT 


LUKE 


9 52 And he sent messengers before 
his face: and they went, and entered into 
a village of the Samaritans, to make 
ready for him. 53 And they did not 
receive him, because his face was as 
though he were going to Jerusalem. 54 
And when his disciples James and John 
saw this, they said, Lord, wilt thou that 
we bid fire to come down from heaven, 
and consume them? 55 But he turned, 
and rebuked them. 56 And they went 
to another village. 

57 And as they went on the way, a 
certain man said unto him, I will follow 
thee whithersoever thou goest. 58 And 
Jesus said unto him, The foxes have holes, 
and the birds of the heaven have nests; 
but the Son of man hath not where to lay 
his head. 59 And he said unto another, 
Follow me. But he said, Lord, suffer me 
first to go and bury my father. 60 But 
he said unto him, Leave the dead to bury 
their own dead; but go thou and pub- 
lish abroad the kingdom of God. 61 
And another also said, I will follow thee, 
Lord; but first suffer me to bid farewell 
to them that are at my house. 62 But 
Jesus said unto him, No man, having 
put his hand to the plow, and looking 
back, is fit for the kingdom of God. 

1o 2 And he said unto them, The har- 
vest indeed is plenteous, but the laborers 
are few: pray ye therefore the Lord of the 
harvest, that he send forth laborers into 
his harvest. 3 Go your ways; behold, I 
send you forth as lambs in the midst of 
wolves. 4 Carry no purse, no wallet, no 
shoes; and salute no man on the way. 
5 And into whatsoever house ye shall 
enter, first say, Peace be to this house. 
6 And if a son of peace be there, your 
peace shall rest upon him: but if not, it 
shall turn to you again. 7 And in that 
same house remain, eating and drinking 


MATTHEW 


8 19 And there came a scribe, and 
said unto him, Teacher, I will follow thee 
whithersoever thou goest. 20 And Jesus 
saith unto him, The foxes have holes, and 
the birds of the heaven have nests; but 
the Son of man hath not where to lay 
his head. 21 And another of the disci- 
ples said unto him, Lord, suffer me first 
to go and bury my father. 22 But Jesus 
saith unto him, Follow me; and leave 
the dead to bury their own dead. 


9 37 Then saith he unto his disciples, 
The harvest indeed is plenteous, but the 
laborers are few. 38 Pray ye therefore 
the Lord of the harvest, that he send 
forth laborers into his harvest. 

10 16 Behold, I send you forth as sheep 
in the midst of wolves: 


τι And into whatsoever city or village 
ye shall enter, search out who in it is 
worthy; and there abide till ye go forth. 
12 And as ye enter into the house, salute 
it. 13 And if the house be worthy, let 
your peace come upon it: but if it be not 


194 


THE SOURCES OF LUKE’S PEREAN SECTION 67 


LUKE 
such things as they give: for the laborer 
is worthy of his hire. Go not from house 
to house. 8 And into whatsoever city ye 
enter, and they receive you, eat such things 
as are set before you: 9 and heal the sick 
that are therein, and say unto them, The 
kingdom of God is come nigh unto you. 
to But into whatsoever city ye shall enter, 
and they receive you not, go out into the 
streets thereof and say, 11 Even the dust 
from your city, that cleaveth to our feet, 
we wipe off against you: nevertheless 
know this, that the kingdom of God is 
come nigh. 12 1 say unto you, It shall 
be more tolerable in that day for Sodom, 
than for that city. 13 Woe unto thee, 
Chorazin! woe unto thee, Bethsaida! for 
if the mighty works had been done in 
Tyre and Sidon, which were done in you, 
they would have repented long ago, 
sitting in sackcloth and ashes. 14 But 
it shall be more tolerable for Tyre and 
Sidon in the judgment, than for you. 
15 And thou, Capernaum, shalt thou be 
exalted unto heaven? thou shalt be 
brought down unto Hades. 16 He that 
heareth you heareth me; and he that 
rejecteth you rejecteth me; and he that 
rejecteth me rejecteth him that sent me. 


18 And he said unto them, I beheld 
Satan fallen as lightning from heaven. 
19 Behold, I have given you authority 
to tread upon serpents and scorpions, 
and over all the power of the enemy: 
and nothing shall in any wise hurt you. 
20 Nevertheless in this rejoice not, that 
the spirits are subject unto you; but 
rejoice that your names are written in 
heaven. 

21 In that same hour he rejoiced in 
the Holy Spirit, and said, I thank thee, O 
Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that 
thou didst hide these things from the wise 
and understanding, and didst reveal 


MATTHEW 


worthy, let your peace return to you. 
τοῦ For the laborer is worthy of his food. 


7 And as ye go, preach, saying, The 
kingdom of heaven is at hand. 8 Heal 
the sick, raise the dead, cleanse the lepers, 
cast out demons: 

14 And whosoever shall not receive you, 
nor hear your words, as ye go forth out 
of that house or that city, shake off the 
dust of your feet. 15 Verily I say unto 
you, It shall be more tolerable for the 
land of Sodom and Gomorrah in the day 
of judgment, than for that city. 

Ir 21 Woe unto thee, Chorazin! woe 
unto thee, Bethsaida! for if the mighty 
works had been done in Tyre and Sidon 
which were done in you, they would have 
repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes. 
22 But I say unto you, it shall be more 
tolerable for Tyre and Sidon in the day 
of judgment, than for you. 23 And thou, 
Capernaum, shalt thou be exalted unto 
heaven? thou shalt go down unto Hades: 
for if the mighty works had been done 
in Sodom which were done in thee, it 
would have remained until this day. 24 
But I say unto you that it shall be more 
tolerable for the land of Sodom in the 
day of judgment, than for thee. 

10 40 He that receiveth you receiveth 
me. 


Ir 25 At that season Jesus answered 
and said, I thank thee, O Father, Lord 
of heaven and earth, that thou didst hide 
these things from the wise and under- 
standing, and didst reveal them unto 


195 


68 HISTORICAL AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES 


LUKE 


them unto babes: yea, Father; for so it 
was well-pleasing in thy sight. 22 All 
things have been delivered unto me of 
my Father: and no one knoweth who the 
Son is, save the Father; and who the 
Father is, save the Son, and he to whom- 
soever the Son willeth to reveal him. 
23 And turning to the disciples, he said 
privately, Blessed are the eyes which see 
the things that ye see: 24 for I say unto 
you, that many prophets and kings de- 
sired to see the things which ye see, and 
saw them not; and to hear the things 
which ye hear, and heard them not. 

*[38 Now as they went on their way, he 
entered into a certain village] and a cer- 
tain woman named Martha received him 
into her house. 39 And she had a sister 
called Mary, who also sat at the Lord’s 
feet, and heard his word. 40 But Martha 
was cumbered about much serving; and 
she came up to him, and said, Lord, dost 
thou not care that my sister did leave 
me to serve alone? bid her therefore that 
she help me. 41 But the Lord answered 
and said unto her, Martha, Martha, thou 
art anxious and troubled about many 
things: 42 but one thing is needful: for 
Mary hath chosen the good part, which 
shall not be taken away from her. 

11 And it came to pass, as he was pray- 
ing in a certain place, that when he ceased, 
one of his disciples said unto him, Lord, 
teach us to pray, even as John also taught 
his disciples. 2 And he said unto them, 
When ye pray, say, Father, Hallowed 
be thy name. Thy kingdom come. 
3 Give us day by day our daily bread. 
4 And forgive us our sins; for we ourselves 
also forgive every one that is indebted to 
us. And bring us not into temptation. 


5 And he said unto them, Which of you 
shall have a friend, and shall go unto him 


MATTHEW 


babes: 26 yea, Father, for so it was well- 
pleasing in thy sight. 27 All things have 
been delivered unto me of my Father: and 
no one knoweth the Son, save the Father; 
neither doth any know the Father, save 
the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son 
willeth to reveal him. 


13 16 But blessed are your eyes, for 
they see; and your ears, for they hear. 
17 For verily I say unto you, that many 
prophets and righteous men desired to see 
the things which ye see, and saw them 
not; and to hear the things which ye hear, 
and heard them not. 


6 9 After this manner therefore pray 
ye: Our Father who art in heaven, Hal- 
lowed be thy name. to Thy kingdom 
come. Thy will be done, as in heaven, 
so on earth. τι Give us this day our 
daily bread. 12 And forgive us our debts, 
as we also have forgiven our debtors. 13 
And bring us not into temptation, but 
deliver us from the evil one. 


* Passages concerning which there is doubt as to whether they belonged to the document are 


bracketed. 


196 


THE SOURCES OF LUKE’S PEREAN SECTION 69 


LUKE 


at midnight, and say to him, Friend, lend 
me three loaves; 6 for a friend of mine is 
come to me from a journey, and I have 
nothing to set before him; 7 and he from 
within shall answer and say, Trouble me 
not: the door is now shut, and my chil- 
dren are with me in bed; I cannot rise 
and give thee? 8 I say unto you, Though 
he will not rise and give him because he 
is his friend, yet because of his impor- 
tunity he will arise and give him as 
many as he needeth. g And I say unto 
you, Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, 
and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be 
opened unto you. τὸ For every one that 
asketh receiveth; and he that seeketh 
findeth; and to him that knocketh it shall 
be opened. 11 And of which of you that 
is a father shall his son ask a loaf, and 
he give him a stone? or a fish, and he for 
a fish give him a serpent? 12 Or 7f he 
shall ask an egg, will he give him a scor- 
pion? 13 If ye then, being evil, know 
how to give good gifts unto your children, 
how much more shall your heavenly 
Father give the Holy Spirit to them that 
ask him ? 

14 And he was casting out a demon 
that was dumb. And it came to pass, 
when the demon was gone out, the dumb 
man spake; and the multitudes mar- 
velled. [15 But some of them said, By 
Beelzebub the prince of the demons 
casteth he out demons.] 16 And others, 
trying him, sought of him a sign from 
heaven. 17 But he, knowing their 
thoughts, said unto them, Every king- 
dom divided against itself is brought to 
desolation; and a house divided against 
a house falleth. 18 And if Satan also is 
divided against himself, how shall his 
kingdom stand? because ye say that I 
cast out demons by Beelzebub. το 
And if I by Beelzebub cast out demons, 
by whom do your sons cast them out? 
therefore shall they be your judges. 20 
But if I by the finger of God cast out 


MATTHEW 


7 7 Ask, and it shall be given you; 
seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it 
shall be opened unto you: 8 for every one 
that asketh receiveth; and he that seek- 
eth findeth; and to him that knocketh 
it shall be opened. go Or what man is 
there of you, who, if his son shall ask him 
for a loaf, will give him a stone; 10, or if 
he shall ask for a fish, will give him a ser- 
pent? τι If ye then, being evil, know 
how to give good gifts unto your children, 
how much more shall your Father who 
is in heaven give good things to them that 
ask him? 


12 22 Then was brought unto him one 
possessed with a demon, blind and dumb: 
and he healed him, insomuch that the 
dumb man spake and saw. 23 And all the 
multitudes were amazed, and said, Can 
this be the son of David? 24 But when 
the Pharisees heard it, they said, This man 
doth not cast out demons, but by Beel- 
zebub the prince of the demons. 25 And 
knowing their thoughts, he said unto 
them, Every kingdom divided against 
itself is brought to desolation; and every 
city or house divided against itself shall 
not stand: 26 and if Satan casteth out 
Satan, he is divided against himself; how 
then shall his kingdom stand? 27 And 
if I by Beelzebub cast out demons, by 
whom do your sons cast them out? there- 
fore shall they be your judges. 28 But 
if I by the Spirit of God cast out demons, 


197 


70 HISTORICAL AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES 


LUKE 
demons, then is the kingdom of God come 
upon you. 21 When the strong man 
fully armed guardeth his own court, his 
goods are in peace: 22 but when a stronger 
than he shall come upon him, and over- 
come him, he taketh from him his whole 
armor wherein he trusted, and divideth 
his spoils. 23 He that is not with me is 
against me; and he that gathereth not 
with me scattereth. 24 The unclean 
spirit when he is gone out of the man, 
passeth through waterless places, seeking 
rest, and finding none, he saith, I will 
turn back unto my house whence I came 
out. 25 And when he is come, he findeth 
it swept and garnished. 26 Then goeth 
he, and taketh to him seven other spirits 
more evil than himself; and they enter in 
and dwell there: and the last state of 
that man becometh worse than the first. 

27 And it came to pass, as he said these 
things, a certain woman out of the mul- 
titude lifted up her voice, and said unto 
him, Blessed is the womb that bare thee, 
and the breasts which thou didst suck. 
28 But he said, Yea rather, blessed are 
they that hear the word of God, and keep 
it. 

29 And when the multitudes were 
gathering together unto him, he began 
to say, This generation is an evil gen- 
eration: it seeketh after a sign; and there 
shall no sign be given to it but the sign 
of Jonah. 30 For even as Jonah became 
a sign unto the Ninevites, so shall also 
the Son of man be to this generation. 31 
The queen of the south shall rise up in 
the judgment with the men of this gen- 
eration, and shall condemn them: for 
she came from the ends of the earth to 
hear the wisdom of Solomon; and behold, 
a greater than Solomon is here. 32 The 
men of Nineveh shall stand up in the 
judgment with this generation, and shall 
condemn it: for they repented at the 
preaching of Jonah; and behold, a 
greater than Jonah is here. 


MATTHEW 


then is the kingdom of God come upon 
you. 29 Or how can one enter into the 
house of the strong man, and spoil his 
goods, except he first bind the strong 
man? and then he will spoil his house. 
30 He that is not with me is against me; 
and he that gathereth not with me scat- 
tereth. 

43 But the unclean spirit, when he 
is gone out of the man, passeth through 
waterless places, seeking rest, and findeth 
it not. 44 Then he saith, I will return 
into my house whence I came out; and 
when he is come, he findeth it empty, 
swept, and garnished. 45 Then goeth 
he, and taketh with himself seven other 
spirits more evil than himself, and they 
enter in and dwell there: and the last 
state of that man becometh worse than 
the first. Even so shall it be also unto 
this evil generation. 


38 Then certain of the scribes and 
Pharisees answered him, saying, Teacher, 
we would see a sign from thee. 39 But 
he answered and said unto them, An evil 
and adulterous generation seeketh after 
a sign; and there shall no sign be given to 
it but the sign of Jonah the prophet: 40 
for as Jonah was three days and three 
nights in the belly of the whale; 50 shall 
the Son of man be three days and three 
nights in the heart of the earth. 41 The 
men of Nineveh shall stand up in the 
judgment with this generation, and shall 
condemn it: for they repented at the 
preaching of Jonah; and behold, a greater 
than Jonah is here. 42 The queen of the 
south shall rise up in the judgment with 
this generation, and shall condemn it: 
for she came from the ends of the earth 
to hear the wisdom of Solomon; and be- 
hold, a greater than Solomon is here. 


198 


THE SOURCES OF LUKE’S PEREAN SECTION 71 


LUKE 

33 Noman, when he hathlightedalamp, 
putteth it in a cellar, neither under the 
bushel, but on the stand, that they which 
enter in may see the light. 34 The lamp 
of thy body is thine eye: when thine eye 
is single, thy whole body also is full of 
light; but when it is evil, thy body also 
is full of darkness. 35 Look therefore 
whether the light that is in thee be not 
darkness. 36 If therefore thy whole 
body be full of light, having no part dark, 
it shall be wholly full of light, as when the 
lamp with its bright shining doth give 
thee light. 

[37 Now as he spake, a Pharisee asketh 
him to dine with him: and he went in, 
and sat down to-meat. 38 And when the 
Pharisee saw it, he marvelled that he 
had not first bathed himself before din- 
ner.] 39 And the Lord said unto him, 
Now ye the Pharisees cleanse the outside 
of the cup and of the platter; but your 
inward part is full of extortion and wick- 
edness. 40 Ye foolish ones, did not he 
that made the outside make the inside 
also? 41 But give for alms those things 
which are within; and behold all things 
are clean unto you. 

42 But woe unto you Pharisees! for ye 
tithe mint and rue and every herb, and 
pass over justice and the love of God: but 
these ought ye to have done, and not to 
leave the other undone. 43 Woe unto 
you Pharisees! for ye love the chief seats 
in the synagogues, and the salutations 
in the market-places. 44 Woe unto you! 
for ye are as the tombs which appear not, 
and the men that walk over them know 
it not. 


45 And one of the lawyers answering 
saith unto him, Teacher, in saying this 
thou reproachest us also. 46 And he 
said, Woe unto you lawyers also! for ye 
load men with burdens grievous to be 
borne, and ye yourselves touch not the 


MATTHEW 


5 15 Neither do men light a lamp, and 
put it under the bushel, but on the stand; 
and it shineth unto all that are in the 
house. 

6 22 The lamp of the body is the eye: 
if therefore thine eye be single, thy whole 
body shall be full of light. 23 But if 
thine eye be evil, thy whole body shall 
be full of darkness. If therefore the 
light that is in thee be darkness, how great 
is the darkness! 


23 25 Woe unto you, scribes and Phari- 
sees, hypocrites! for ye cleanse the out- 
side of the cup and of the platter, but 
within they are full from extortion and 
excess. 26 Thou blind Pharisee, cleanse 
first the inside of the cup and of the plat- 
ter, that the outside thereof may become 
clean also. 

23 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, 
hypocrites! for ye tithe mint and anise 
and cummin, and have left undone the 
weightier matters of the law, justice, and 
mercy, and faith: but these ye ought to 
have done, and not to have left the other 
undone. 

6 and love the chief place at feasts, 
and the chief seats in the synagogues, 
7 and the salutations in the market- 
places. 

27 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, 
hypocrites! for ye are like unto whited 
sepulchres, which outwardly appear 
beautiful, but inwardly are full of dead 
men’s bones, and of all uncleanness. 

4 Yea, they bind heavy burdens and 
grievous to be borne, and lay them on 
men’s shoulders; but they themselves 


199 


72 HISTORICAL AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES 


LUKE 


burdens with one of your fingers. 47 
Woe unto you! for ye build the tombs 
of the prophets, and your fathers killed 
them. 48 So ye are witnesses and con- 
sent unto the works of your fathers: for 
they killed them, and ye build their tombs. 
49 Therefore also said the wisdom of God, 
I will send unto them prophets and apos- 
tles; and some of them they shall kill and 
persecute; 50 that the blood of all the 
prophets, which was shed from the founda- 
tion of the world, may be required of this 
generation; 51 from the blood of Abel 
unto the blood of Zachariah, who perished 
between the altar and the sanctuary: yea, 
I say unto you, it shall be required of this 
generation. 52 Woe unto you lawyers! 
for ye took away the key of knowledge: 
ye entered not in yourselves, and them 
that were entering in ye hindered. 


12 He began to say unto his disci- 
ples first of all, Beware ye of the leaven 
of the Pharisees, which is hypocrisy. 
2 But there is nothing covered up, 
that shall not be revealed; and hid, that 
shall not be known. 3 Wherefore what- 
soever ye have said in the darkness shall 
be heard in the light; and what ye have 
spoken in the ear in the inner chambers 
shall be proclaimed upon the housetops. 
4 And I say unto you my friends, Be not 
afraid of them that kill the body, and 
after that have no more that they can 
do. 5 But I will warn you whom ye shall 
fear: Fear him, who after he hath killed 
hath power to cast into hell; yea, I say 


MATTHEW 


will not move them with their finger. 

29 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, 
hypocrites! for ye build the sepulchres of 
the prophets, and garnish the tombs of 
the righteous, 30 and say, If we had been 
in the days of our fathers, we should not 
have been partakers with them in the 
blood of the prophets. 31 Wherefore ye 
witness to yourselves, that ye are sons of 
them that slew the prophets. 32 Fill ye 
up then the measure of your fathers. 33 
Ye serpents, ye offspring of vipers, how 
shall ye escape the judgment of hell? 
34 Therefore, behold, I send unto you 
prophets, and wise men, and scribes: 
some of them shall ye kill and crucify; 
and some of them shall ye scourge in 
your synagogues, and persecute from 
city to city: 35 that upon you may come 
all the righteous blood shed on the earth, 
from the blood of Abel the righteous unto 
the blood of Zachariah son of Barachiah, 
whom ye slew between the sanctuary and 
the altar. 36 Verily I say unto you, All 
these things shall come upon this gen- 
eration. 

13 But woe unto you, scribes and 
Pharisees, hypocrites! because ye shut 
the kingdom of heaven against men: for 
ye enter not in yourselves, neither suffer 
ye them that are entering in to enter. 

Io 26 Fear them not therefore: for 
there is nothing covered, that shall not 
be revealed; and hid, that shall not be 
known. 27 What I tell you in the dark- 
ness, speak ye in the light; and what ye 
hear in the ear, proclaim upon the house- 
tops. 28 And be not afraid of them that 
kill the body, but are not able to kill the 
soul: but rather fear him who is able to 
destroy both soul and body in hell. 29 
Are not two sparrows sold for a penny? 
and not one them shall fall on the ground 
without your Father: 30 but the very 
hairs of your head are all numbered. 31 
Fear not therefore: ye are of more value 
than many sparrows. 32 Every one there- 


200 


THE SOURCES OF LUKE’S PEREAN SECTION 73 


LUKE 


unto you, Fear him. 6 Are not five spar- 
rows sold for two pence? and not one 
of them is forgotten in the sight of God. 
7 But the very hairs of your head are all 
numbered. Fear not: ye are of more 
value than many sparrows. 8 And I say 
unto you, Every one who shall confess 
me before men, him shall the Son of man 
also confess before the angels of God: 
9 but he that denieth me in the presence 
of men shall be denied in the presence of 
the angels of God. 10 And every one who 
shall speak a word against the Son of 
man, it shall be forgiven him: but unto 
him that blasphemeth against the Holy 
Spirit it shall not be forgiven. τι And 
when they bring you before the syna- 
gogues, and the rulers, and the authori- 
ties, be not anxious how or what ye shall 
answer, or what ye shall say: 12 for the 
Holy Spirit shall teach you in that very 
hour what ye ought to say. 

12 22 Therefore I say unto you, Be 
not anxious for your life, what ye shall 
eat; nor yet for your body, what ye shall 
puton. 23 For the life is more than the 
food, and the body than the raiment. 24 
Consider the ravens, that they sow not, 
neither reap; which have no store- 
chamber nor barn; and God feedeth 
them: of how much more value are ye 
than the birds! 25 And which of you by 
being anxious can add a cubit unto the 
measure of his life? 26 If then ye are 
not able to do even that which is least, 
why are ye anxious concerning the rest? 
27 Consider the lilies, how they grow: 
they toil not, neither do they spin; yet I 
say unto you, Even Solomon in all his 
glory was not arrayed like one of these. 
28 But if God doth so clothe the grass 
in the field, which to-day is, and to- 
morrow is cast into the oven; how much 
more shall he clothe you, O ye of little 
faith? 29 And seek not ye what ye shall 
eat, and what ye shall drink, neither be 
ye of doubtful mind. 30 For all these 


MATTHEW 


fore who shall confess me before men, 
him will I also confess before my Father 
who is in heaven. 33 But whosoever 
shall deny me before men, him will I 
also deny before my Father who is in 
heaven. 


12 32 And whosoever shall speak a 
word against the Son of man, it shall be 
forgiven him; but whosoever shall speak 
against the Holy Spirit, it shall not be 
forgiven him, neither in this world, nor 
in that which is to come. 

Io 19 But when they deliver you up, 
be not anxious how or what ye shall 
speak: for it shall be given you in that 
hour what ye shall speak. 20 For it is 
not ye that speak, but the Spirit of your 
Father that speaketh in you. 

6 25 Therefore I say unto you, Be not 
anxious for your life, what ye shall eat, 
or what ye shall drink; nor yet for your 
body, what ye shall put on. Is not the 
life more than the food, and the body than 
the raiment? 26 Behold the birds of the 
heaven, that they sow not, neither do 
they reap, nor gather into barns; and 
your heavenly Father feedeth them. Are 
not ye of much more value than they? 
27 And which of you by being anxious 
can add one cubit unto the measure of 
his life? 28 And why are ye anxious 
concerning raiment? Consider the lilies 
of the field, how they grow; they toil 
not, neither do they spin: 29 yet I say 
unto you, that even Solomon in all his 
glory was not arrayed like one of these. 
30 But if God doth so clothe the grass of 
the field, which to-day is, and to-morrow 
is cast into the oven, shall he not much 
more clothe you, O ye of little faith? 31 
Be not therefore anxious, saying, What 
shall we eat ? or, What shall we drink ? or, 
Wherewithal shall we be clothed? 32 


201 


74 HISTORICAL AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES 


LUKE 


things do the nations of the world seek 
after: but your Father knoweth that ye 
have need of these things. 31 Yet seek 
ye his kingdom, and these things shall 
be added unto you. 32 Fear not, little 
flock; for it is your Father’s good pleas- 
ure to give you the kingdom. 33 Sell 
that which ye have, and give alms; 
make for yourselves purses which wax 
not old, a treasure in the heavens that 
faileth not, where no thief draweth near, 
neither moth destroyeth. 34 For where 
your treasure is, there will your heart be 
also. 


35 Let your loins be girded about, and 
your lamps burning; 36 and be ye your- 
selves like unto men looking for their 
lord, when he shall return from the mar- 
riage feast; that, when he cometh and 
knocketh, they may straightway open 
untohim. 37 Blessed are those servants, 
whom the lord when he cometh shall find 
watching: verily I say unto you, that 
he shall gird himself, and make them sit 
down to meat, and shall come and serve 
them. 38 And if he shall come in the 
second watch, and if in the third, and 
find them so, blessed are those servants. 
39 But know this, that if the master of 
the house had known in what hour the 
thief was coming, he would have watched, 
and not have left his house to be broken 
through. 40 Be ye also ready: for in an 
hour that ye think not the Son of man 
cometh. 

42 Who then is the faithful and wise 
steward, whom his lord shall set over 
his household, to give them their por- 
tion of food in due season? 43 Blessed 
is that servant, whom his lord when 
he cometh shall find so doing. 44 Of a 
truth I say unto you, that he will set 
him over all that he hath. 45 But if that 


MATTHEW 


For after all these things do the Gentiles 
seek; for your heavenly Father knoweth 
that ye have need of all these things. 33 
But seek ye first his kingdom, and his 
righteousness; and all these things shall 
be added unto you. 34 Be not there- 
fore anxious for the morrow: for the 
morrow will be anxious for itself. Sufhi- 
cient unto the day is the evil thereof. 

19 Lay not up for yourselves treasures 
upon the earth, where moth and rust 
consume, and where thieves break 
through and steal: 20 but lay up for 
yourselves treasures in heaven, where 
neither moth nor rust doth consume, and 
where thieves do not break through nor 
steal: 21 for where thy treasure is, there 
will thy heart be also. 


24 43 But know this, that if the master 
of the house had known in what watch the 
thief was coming, he would have watched, 
and would not have suffered his house 
to be broken through. 44 Therefore be 
ye also ready; for in an hour that ye 
think not the Son of man cometh. 

45 Who then is the faithful and 
wise servant, whom his lord hath set 
over his household, to give them their 
food in due season? 46 Blessed is that 
servant, whom his lord when he cometh 
shall find so doing. 47 Verily I say unto 
you, that he will set him over all that he 
hath. 48 But if that evil servant shall 


202 


THE SOURCES OF LUKE’S PEREAN SECTION 75 


LUKE 

servant shall say in his heart, My lord 
delayeth his coming; and shall begin to 
beat the menservants and the maidserv- 
ants, and to eat and drink, and to be 
drunken; 46 the lord of that servant 
shall come in a day when he ex- 
pecteth not, and in an hour when 
he knoweth not, and shall cut him 
asunder, and appoint his portion with the 
unfaithful. 47 And that servant, who 
knew his lord’s will, and made not ready, 
nor did according to his will, shall be 
beaten with many stripes; 48 but he 
that knew not, and did things worthy of 
stripes, shall be beaten with few stripes. 
And to whomsoever much is given, of 
him shall much be required: and to whom 
they commit much, of him will they ask 
the more. 

49 I came to cast fire upon the earth; 
and what do I desire, if it is already 
kindled? 50 But I have a baptism to be 
baptized with; and how am 1 straitened 
till it be accomplished! 51 Think ye that 
I am come to give peace in the earth? 
I tell you, Nay; but rather division: 
52 for there shall be from henceforth five 
in one house divided, three against two, 

and two against three. 53 They shall 

be divided, father against son, and son 
against father; mother against daughter, 
and daughter against her mother; mother 
in law against her daughter in law, and 
daughter in law against her mother in 
law. 

[54 And he said to the multitudes also,] 
When ye see a cloud rising in the west, 
straightway ye say, There cometh a 
shower; and so it cometh to pass. 55 
And when ye see a south wind blowing, 
ye say, There will be a scorching heat; 
and it cometh to pass. 56 Ye hypocrites, 
ye know how to interpret the face of the 
earth and the heaven; but how is it that 
ye know not how to interpret this time ? 
57 And why even of yourselves judge ye 
not what is right? 58 For as thou art 


MATTHEW 


say in his heart, My lord tarrieth; 49 
and shall begin to beat his fellow-servants, 
and shall eat and drink with the drunken; 
50 the lord of that servant shall come 
in a day when he expecteth not, and in an 
hour when he knoweth not, 51 and shall 
cut him asunder, and appoint his portion 
with the hypocrites: there shall be the 
weeping and the gnashing of teeth. 


to 34 Think not that I came to send 
peace on the earth: I came not to send 
peace, buta sword. 35 For I came to set 
a man at variance against his father, and 
the daughter against her mother, and the 
daughter in law against her mother in law: 
36 and a man’s foes shall be they of his 
own household. 


203 


70 HISTORICAL AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES 


LUKE 


going with thine adversary before the 
magistrate, on the way give diligence to 
be quit of him; ‘lest haply he drag thee 
unto the judge, and the judge shall deliver 
thee to the officer, and the officer shall 
cast thee into prison. 59 I say unto 
thee, Thou shalt by no means come out 
thence, till thou have paid the very last 
mite. 

13 18 He said therefore, Unto what is 
the kingdom of God like? and where- 
unto shall I liken it? το It is like unto 
a grain of mustard seed, which a man 
took, and cast into his own garden; and 
it grew, and became a tree; and the birds 
of the heaven lodged in the branches 
thereof. 

20 And again he said, Whereunto shall 
I liken the kingdom of God? a1 It is 
like unto leaven, which a woman took and 
hid in three measures of meal, till it was 
all leavened. 

23 And one said unto him, Lord, are 
they few that are saved? And he said 
unto them, 24 Strive to enter in by 
the narrow door: for many, I say 
unto you, shall seek to enter in, and 
shall not be able. 25 When once the 
master of the house is risen up, and 
hath shut to the door, and ye begin to 
stand without, and to knock at the door 
saying, Lord, open to us; and he shall 
answer and say to you, I know you not 
whence ye are; 26 then shall ye begin to 
say, We did eat and drink in thy presence, 
and thou didst teach in our streets; 27 
and he shall say, I tell you, I know not 
whence ye are; depart from me, all ye 
workers of iniquity. 28 There shall be 
the weeping and the gnashing of teeth, 
when ye shall see Abraham, and Isaac, 
and Jacob, and all the prophets, in the 
kingdom of God, and yourselves cast 
forth without. 29 And they shall come 
from the east and west, and from the 
north and south, and shall sit down in the 
kingdom of God. 30 And behold, there 


MATTHEW 


5 25 Agree with thine adversary 
quickly, while thou art with him in the 
way; lest haply the adversary deliver 
thee to the judge, and the judge deliver 
thee to the officer, and thou be cast into 
prison. 26 Verily I say unto thee, Thou 
shalt by no means come out thence, till 
thou have paid the last farthing. 


13 The kingdom of heaven is like unto 
a grain of mustard seed, which a man 
took, and sowed in his field: 32 which 
indeed is less than all seeds; but when 
it is grown, it is greater than the herbs, 
and becometh a tree, so that the birds 
of the heaven come and lodge in the 
branches thereof. 

33 Another parable spake he unto them; 
The kingdom of heaven is like unto leaven, 
which a woman took, and hid in three 
measures of meal, till it was all leavened. 


8 11 And I say unto you, that many 
shall come from the east and the west, 
and shall sit down with Abraham and 
Isaac, and Jacob, in the kingdom of 
heaven: 12 but the sons of the kingdom 
shall be cast forth into the outer darkness: 
there shall be the weeping and the gnashing 


204 


THE SOURCES OF LUKE’S PEREAN SECTION rid 


LUKE 


are last who shall be first, and there are 
first who shall be last. 

31 In that very hour there came cer- 
tain Pharisees, saying to him, Get thee 
out, and go hence: for Herod would fain 
kill thee. 32 And he said unto them, Go 
and say to that fox, Behold, I cast out 
demons and perform cures to-day and 
to-morrow, and the third day I am per- 
fected. 33 Nevertheless I must go on 
my way to-day and to-morrow and the 
day following: for it cannot be that a 
prophet perish out of Jerusalem. 34 O 
Jerusalem, Jerusalem, that killeth the 
prophets, and stoneth them that are sent 
unto her! how often would I have gath- 
ered thy children together, even as a hen 
gathereth her own brood under her wings, 
and ye would not! 35 Behold, your 
house is left unto you desolate: and I say 
unto you, Ye shall not see me, until ye 
shall say, Blessed is he that cometh in 
the name of the Lord. 

14 8 When thou art bidden of any 
man to a marriage feast, sit not down 
in the chief seat; lest haply a more 
honorable man than thou be bidden of 
him, 9 and he that bade thee and him 
shall come and say to thee, Give this man 
place; and then thou shalt begin with 
shame to take the lowest place. τὸ But 
when thou art bidden, go and sit down in 
the lowest place; that when he that hath 
bidden thee cometh, he may say to thee, 
Friend, go up higher: then shalt thou 
have glory in the presence of all that sit 
at meat with thee. 11 For every one that 
exalteth himself shall be humbled; and 
he that humbleth himself shall be exalted. 

12 And he said to him also that had 
bidden him, When thou makest a dinner 
or a supper, call not thy friends, nor thy 
brethren, nor thy kinsmen, nor rich 
neighbors; lest haply they also bid thee 
again, and a recompense be made thee. 
13 But when thou makest a feast, bid the 
poor, the maimed, the lame, the blind: 


MATTHEW 


of teeth. 20 16 So the last shall be first, 
and the first last. 


23 37 O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, that 
killeth the prophets, and stoneth them 
that are sent unto her! how often would 
I have gathered thy children together, 
even as a hen gathereth her chickens 
under her wings, and ye would not! 38 
Behold, your house is left unto you deso- 
late. 39 For I say unto you, Ye shall not 
see me henceforth, till ye shall say, 
Blessed is he that cometh in the name of 
the Lord. 


12 And whosoever shall exalt himself 
shall be humbled; and whosoever shall 
humble himself shall be exalted. 


205 


78 HISTORICAL AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES 


LUKE 


14 and thou shalt be blessed; because 
they have not wherewith to recompense 
thee: for thou shalt be recompensed in 
the resurrection of the just. 

15 And when one of them that sat at 
meat with him heard these things, he said 
unto him, Blessed is he that shall eat 
bread in the kingdom of God. 16 But 
he said unto him, 26 If any man cometh 
unto me, and hateth not his own father, 
and mother, and wife, and children, and 
brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own 
life also, he cannot be my disciple. 27 
Whosoever doth not bear his own cross, 
and come after me, cannot be my 
disciple. 28 For which of you, desiring 
to build a tower, doth not first sit down 
and count the cost, whether he have 
wherewith to complete it? 29 Lest 
haply, when he hath laid a founda- 
tion, and is not able to finish, all that 
behold begin to mock him, 30 saying, 
This man began to build, and was not 
able to finish. 31 Or what king, as he 
goéth to encounter another king in war, 
will not sit down first and take counsel 
whether he is able with ten thousand to 
meet him that cometh against him with 
twenty thousand? 32 Or else, while the 
other is yet a great way off, he sendeth 
an ambassage, and asketh conditions of 
peace. 33 So therefore whosoever he be 
of you that renounceth not all that he 
hath, he cannot be my disciple. 34 Salt 
therefore is good: but if even the salt 
have lost its savor, wherewith shall it be 
seasoned? 35 It is fit neither for the 
land nor for the dunghill: men cast it out. 
He that hath ears to hear, let him hear. 

16 And he said also unto the disciples, 
There was a certain rich man, who had a 
steward; and the same was accused unto 
him that he was wasting his goods. 2 
And he called him, and said unto him, 
What is this that I hear of thee ? render 
the account of thy stewardship; for thou 
canst be no longer steward. 3 And the 


MATTHEW 


to 37 He that loveth father or mother 
more than me is not worthy of me; and 
he that loveth son or daughter more than 
me is not worthy of me. 38 And he that 
doth not take his cross and follow after 
me, is not worthy of me. 


5 136 but if the salt have lost its savor, 
wherewith shall it be salted? it is 
thenceforth good for nothing, but to be 
cast out and trodden under foot of men. 

11 15 He that hath ears to hear, let 
him hear. 


206 


THE SOURCES OF LUKE’S PEREAN SECTION 79 


LUKE 


steward said within himself, What shall 
I do, seeing that my lord taketh away 
the stewardship from me? I have not 
strength to dig; to beg I am ashamed. 
4 I am resolved what to do, that, when 
I am put out of the stewardship, they 
may receive me into their houses. 5 And 
calling to him each one of his lord’s debt- 
ors, he said to the first, How much owest 
thou unto my lord? 6 And he said, A 
hundred measures of oil. And he said 
unto him, Take thy bond, and sit down 
quickly and write fifty. 7 Then said he 
to another, And how much owest thou ? 
And he said, A hundred measures of 
wheat. He saith unto him, Take thy 
bond, and write fourscore. 8 And his 
lord commended the unrighteous steward 
because he had done wisely: for the sons 
of this world are for their own genera- 
tion wiser than the sons of the light. 
9 And I say unto you, Make to yourselves 
friends by means of the mammon of 
unrighteousness; that, when it shall fail, 
they may receive you into the eternal 
tabernacles. 10 He that is faithful in a 
very little is faithful also in much: and 
he that is unrighteous in a very little is 
unrighteous also in much. 11 If there- 
fore ye have not been faithful in the un- 
righteous mammon, who will commit to 
your trust the true riches? 12 And if ye 
have not been faithful in that which is 
another’s, who will giye you that which is 
your own? 1 3 No servant can serve 
two masters: for either he will hate the 
one, and love the other; or else he will 
hold to one and despise the other. Ye 
cannot serve God and mammon. 

16 The law and the prophets were until 
John: from that time the gospel of the 
kingdom of God is preached, and every 
man entereth violently into it. 17 But 
it is easier for heaven and earth to pass 
away, than for one tittle of the law to fall. 

18 Every one that putteth away his 
wife, and marrieth another, committeth 


MATTHEW 


6 24 No man can serve two masters: 
for either he will hate the one, and love 
the other; or else he will hold to one, and 
despise the other. Ye cannot serve God 
and mammon. 

1 12 And from the days of John the 
Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven 
suffereth violence, and men of violence 
take it by force. 13 For all the prophets 
and the law prophesied until John. 


5 32 but I say unto you, that every one 
that putteth away his wife, saving for the 


207 


80 HISTORICAL AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES 


LUKE 


adultery: and he that marrieth one that 
is put away from a husband committeth 
adultery. 

17 And he said unto his disciples, It is 
impossible but that occasions of stum- 
bling should come; but woe unto him, 
through whom they come! 2 It were 
well for him if a millstone were hanged 
about his neck, and he were thrown into 
the sea, rather than that he should cause 
one of these little ones to stumble. 3 
Take heed to yourselves: if thy brother 
sin, rebuke him; and if he repent, forgive 
him. 4 And if he sin against thee seven 
times in the day, and seven times turn 
again to thee, saying, I repent; thou shalt 
forgive him. 


6 And the Lord said, If ye had faith 
as a grain of mustard seed, ye would say 
unto this sycamine tree, Be thou rooted 
up, and be thou planted in the sea; and 
it would obey you. 7 But who is there 
of you, having a servant plowing or keep- 
ing sheep, that will say unto him, when 
he is come in from the field, Come 
straightway and sit down to meat; 8 
and will not rather say unto him, Make 
ready wherewith I may sup, and gird 
thyself, and serve me, till I have eaten 
and drunken; and afterward thou shalt 
eat and drink? g Doth he thank the 
servant because he did the things that 
were commanded? to Even so ye also, 
when ye shall have done all the things 
that are commanded you, say, We are 
unprofitable servants; we have done 
that which it was our duty to do. 

20 And being asked by the Pharisees, 
when the kingdom of God cometh, he 
answered them and said, The kingdom 
of God cometh not with observation: 21 


MATTHEW 


cause of fornication, maketh her an adul- 
teress: and whosoever shall marry her 
when she is put away committeth adul- 
tery. 

18 7 Woe unto the world because of 
occasions of stumbling! for it must needs 
be that the occasions come; but woe to 
that man through whom the occasion 
cometh! 


15 And if thy brother sin against thee, 
go, show him his fault between thee and 
him alone: if he hear thee, thou hast 
gained thy brother. 

21 Then came Peter and said to him, 
Lord, how oft shall my brother sin against 
me, and 1 forgive him ? until seven times Ὁ 
22 Jesus saith unto him, I say not unto 
thee, Until seven times; but, Until 
seventy times seven. 

17 20 And he saith unto them, Because 
of your little faith: for verily I say unto 
you, If ye have faith as a grain of mus- 
tard seed, ye shall say unto this mountain, 
Remove hence to yonder place; and it 
shall remove; and nothing shall be im- 
possible unto you. 


208 


THE SOURCES OF LUKE’S PEREAN SECTION 81 


LUKE 


neither shall they say, Lo, here! or, There! 
for lo, the kingdom of God is within you. 

22 And he said unto the disciples, The 
days will come, when ye shall desire to 
see one of the days of the Son of man, 
and ye shall not see it. 23 And they 
shall say to you, Lo, there! Lo, here! go 
not away, nor follow after them: 24 for 
as the lightning, when it lighteneth out 
of the one part under the heaven, shineth 
unto the other part under heaven; so 
shall the Son of man be in his day. [25 
But first must he suffer many things and 
be rejected of this generation.] 26 And 
as it came to pass in the days of Noah, 
even so shall it be also in the days of 
the Son of man. 27 They ate, they 
drank, they married, they were given 
in marriage, until the day that Noah 
entered into the ark, and the flood came, 
and destroyed them all. 28 Likewise 
even as it came to pass in the days of 
Lot; they ate, they drank, they bought, 
they sold, they planted, they builded; 
29 but in the day that Lot went out from 
Sodom it rained fire and brimstone from 
heaven, and destroyed them all: 30 after 
the same manner shall it be in the day 
that the Son of man is revealed. 31 In 
that day, he that shall be on the housetop, 
and his goods in the house, let him not go 
down to take them away: and let him 
that is in the field likewise not return 
back. 32 Remember Lot’s wife. 33 
Whosoever shall seek to gain his life shall 
lose it: but whosoever shall lose his life 
shall preserve it. 34 I say unto you, In 
that night there shall be two men on one 
bed; the one shall be taken, and the other 
shall be left. 35 There shall be two 
women grinding together; the one shall 
be taken, and the other shall be left. 37 
And they answering say unto him, Where, 
Lord? And he said unto them, Where 
the body zs thither will the eagles also be 
gathered together. 

18 And he spake a parable unto them 


MATTHEW 


24 26 If therefore they shall say unto 
you, Behold, he is in the wilderness; go 
not forth: Behold, he is in the inner 
chambers; believe 1} not. 27 For as 
the lightning cometh forth from the east, 
and is seen even unto the west; so shall 
be the coming of the Son of man. 


37 And as were the days of Noah, so 
shall be the coming of the Son of man. 
38 For as in those days which were before 
the flood they were eating and drinking, 
marrying and giving in marriage, until 
the day that Noah entered into the ark, 
39 and they knew not until the flood 
came, and took them all away; so shall 
be the coming of the Son of man. 


Io 39 He that findeth his life shall lose 
it; and he that loseth his life for my sake 
shall find it. 

24 40 Then shall two men be in the 
field; one is taken, and one is left; 41 
two women shall be grinding at the mill; 
one is taken, and one is left. 


28 Wheresoever the carcase is, there 
will the eagles be gathered together. 


209 


82 HISTORICAL AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES 


LUKE 


to the end that they ought always to 
pray, and not to faint; 2 saying, There 
was in a city a judge, who feared not God, 
and regarded not man: 3 and there was a 
widow in that city; and she came oft unto 
him, saying, Avenge me of mine adver- 
sary. 4 And he would not for a while: 
but afterward he said within himself, 
Though I fear not God, nor regard man; 
5 yet because this widow troubleth me, 
I will avenge her, lest she wear me out 
by her continual coming. 6 And the 
Lord said, Hear what the unrighteous 
judge saith. 7 And shall not God avenge 
his elect, that cry to him day and night, 
and yet he is longsuffering over them? 
8 I say unto you, that he will avenge them 
speedily. Nevertheless, when the Son 
of man cometh, shall he find faith on the 
earth? 

19 12 He said therefore, A certain 
nobleman went into a far country, to 
receive for himself a kingdom, and to 
return. 13 And he called ten servants 
of his, and gave them ten pounds, and 
said unto them, Trade ye herewith till I 
come. 14 But his citizens hated him, 
and sent an ambassage after him, saying, 
We will not that this man reign over us. 
15 And it came to pass, when he was come 
back again, having received the kingdom, 
that he commanded these servants, unto 
whom he had given the money, to be called 
to him, that he might know what they 
had gained by trading. 16 And the first 
came before him, saying, Lord, thy pound 
hath made ten pounds more. 17 And 
he said unto him, Well done, thou good 
servant: because thou wast found faith- 
ful in a very little, have thou authority 
over ten cities. 18 And the second came, 
saying, Thy pound, Lord, hath made five 
pounds. τὸ And he said unto him also, 
Be thou also over five cities. 20 And 
another came, saying, Lord, behold, here 
is thy pound, which I kept laid up in a 
napkin: 21 forI feared thee, because thou 


210 


MATTHEW 


THE SOURCES OF LUKE’S PEREAN SECTION 83 


LUKE MATTHEW 


art an austere man: thou takest up that 
which thou layedst not down, and reapest 
that which thou didst not sow. 22 He 
saith unto him, Out of thine own mouth 
will I judge thee, thou wicked servant. 
Thou knewest that I am an austere man, 
taking up that which I laid not down, and 
reaping that which I did not sow; 23 
then wherefore gavest thou not my 
money into the bank, and I at my com- 
ing should have required it with interest ? 
24 And he said unto them that stood by, 
Take away from him the pound, and give 
it unto him that hath the ten pounds. 
25 And they said unto him, Lord, he hath 
ten pounds. 261 say unto you, that unto 
every one that hath shall be given; but 
from him that hath not, even that which 
he hath shall be taken away from him. 
27 But these mine enemies, that would 
not that I should reign over them, bring 
hither, and slay them before me. 


“SECOND” OR “JUDEAN” DOCUMENT 


12 13 And one out of the multitude said unto him, Teacher, bid my brother 
divide the inheritance with me. 14 But he said unto him, Man, who made me a judge 
or a divider over you? 15 And he said unto them, Take heed, and keep yourselves 
from all covetousness: for a man’s life consisteth not in the abundance of the things 
which he possesseth. 16 And he spake a parable unto them, saying, The ground of a 
certain rich man brought forth plentifully: 17 and he reasoned within himself, saying, 
What shall I do, because I have not where to bestow my fruits? 18 And he said, This 
will I do: I will pull down my barns, and build greater; and there will I bestow all my 
grain and my goods. τὸ And I will say to my soul, Soul, thou hast much goods laid 
up for many years; take thine ease, eat, drink, be merry. 20 But God said unto him, 
Thou foolish one, this night is thy soul required of thee; and the things which thou 
hast prepared, whose shall they be? [21 So is he that layeth up treasure for himself, 
and is not rich toward God.] 

13 Now there were some present at that very season who told him of the Galilzans, 
whose blood Pilate had mingled with their sacrifices. 2 And he answered and said 
unto them, Think ye that these Galileeans were sinners above all the Galilzans, because 
they have suffered these things? 3 I tell you, Nay: but, except ye repent, ye shall al] 
in like manner perish. 4 Or those eighteen, upon whom the tower in Siloam fell, and 
killed them, think ye that they were offenders above all the men that dwell in Jerusa- 
lem? 51 tell you, Nay: but, except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish. 

6 And he spake this parable; A certain man had a fig tree planted in his vineyard; 
and he came seeking fruit thereon, and found none. 7 And he said unto the vine- 
dresser, Behold, these three years I come seeking fruit on this fig tree, and find none: 


211 


84 HISTORICAL AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES 


cut it down; why doth it also cumber the ground? 8 And he answering saith unto 
him, Lord, let it alone this year also, till I shall dig about it, and dung it: 9 and if it 
bear fruit thenceforth, well; but if not, thou shalt cut it down. 

το And he was teaching in one of the synagogues on the sabbath day. τι And 
behold, a woman that had a spirit of infirmity eighteen years; and she was bowed 
together, and could in no wise lift herself up. 12 And when Jesus saw her, he called 
her, and said to her, Woman, thou art loosed from thine infirmity. 13 And he laid his 
hands upon her: and immediately she was made straight, and glorified God. 14 And 
the ruler of the synagogue, being moved with indignation because Jesus had healed on 
the sabbath, answered and said to the multitude, There are six days in which men 
ought to work: in them therefore come and be healed, and not on the day of the 
sabbath. 15 But the Lord answered him, and said, Ye hypocrites, doth not each one 
of you on the sabbath loose his ox or his ass from the stall, and lead him away to 
watering? τό And ought not this woman, being a daughter of Abraham, whom Satan 
had bound, lo, these eighteen years, to have been loosed from this bond on the day of 
the sabbath ? 

14 And it came to pass, when he went into the house of one of the rulers of the 
Pharisees on a sabbath to eat bread, that they were watching him. 2 And behold, 
there was before him a certain man that had the dropsy. 3 And Jesus answering spake 
unto the lawyers and Pharisees, saying, Is it lawful to heal on the sabbath, or not? 
4 But they held their peace. And he took him, and healed him, and let him go. 5 
And he said unto them, Which of you shall have an ass or an ox fallen into a well, and 
will not straightway draw him up on a sabbath day? [6 And they could not answer 
again unto these things.] 

A certain man made a great supper; and he bade many: 17 and he sent forth his 
servant at supper time to say to them that were bidden, Come; for all things are now 
ready. 18 And they all with one consent began to make excuse. The first said unto 
him, I have bought a field, and I must needs go out and see it; I pray thee have me 
excused. τὸ And another said I have bought five yoke of oxen, and I go to prove 
them; I pray thee have me excused. 20 And another said, I have married a wife, and 
therefore I cannot come. 21 And the servant came and told his lord these things. 
Then the master of the house being angry said to his servant, Go out quickly into the 
streets and lanes of the city, and bring in hither the poor and maimed and blind and 
lame. 22 And the servant said, Lord, what thou didst command is done, and yet there 
isroom. 23 And the lord said unto the servant, Go out into the highways and hedges, 
and constrain them to come in, that my house may be filled. 24 For I say unto you, 
that none of those men that were bidden shall taste of my supper. 

15 Now all the publicans and sinners were drawing near unto him to hear him. 
2 And both the Pharisees and the scribes murmured, saying, This man receiveth sin- 
ners, and eateth with them. 

3 And he spake unto them this parable, saying, 4 What man of you, having a 
hundred sheep, and having lost one of them, doth not leave the ninety and nine in the 
wilderness, and go after that which is lost, until he find it? 5 And when he hath found 
it, he layeth it on his shoulders, rejoicing. 6 And when he cometh home, he calleth 
together his friends and his neighbors, saying unto them, Rejoice with me, for I have 
found my sheep which was lost. 7 I say unto you, that even so there shall be joy in 
heaven over one sinner that repenteth, more than over ninety and nine righteous per- 
sons, who need no repentance. 


212 


THE SOURCES OF LUKE’S PEREAN SECTION 85 


8 Or what woman having ten pieces of silver, if she lose one piece, doth not light 
a lamp, and sweep the house, and seek diligently until she find it? o And when she 
hath found it, she calleth together her friends and neighbors, saying, Rejoice with me, 
for I have found the piece which I had lost. 10 Even so, I say unto you, there is joy 
in the presence of the angels of God over one sinner that repenteth. 

1 And he said, A certain man had two sons: 12 and the younger of them said to 
his father, Father, give me the portion of thy substance that falleth to me. And he 
divided unto them his living. 13 And not many days after, the younger son gathered 
all together and took his journey into a far country; and there he wasted his substance 
with riotous living. 14 And when he had spent all, there arose a mighty famine in 
that country; and he began to be in want. 15 And he went and joined himself to one of 
the citizens of that country; and he sent him into his fields to feed swine. 16 And he 
would fain have filled his belly with the husks that the swine did eat: and no man 
gave unto him. 17 But when he came to himself he said, How many hired servants 
of my father’s have bread enough and to spare, and I perish here with hunger! 181 
will arise and go to my father, and will say unto him, Father, I have sinned against 
heaven, and in thy sight: 19 I am no more worthy to be called thy son: make me as 
one of thy hired-servants. 20 And he arose, and came to his father. But while he 
was yet afar off, his father saw him, and was moved with compassion, and ran, and fell 
on his neck, and kissed him. 21 And the son said unto him, Father, I have sinned 
against heaven, and in thy sight: I am no more worthy to be called thy son. 22 But 
the father said to his servants, Bring forth quickly the best robe, and put it on him; 
and put a ring on his hand, and shoes on his feet: 23 and bring the fatted calf, and kill 
it, and let us eat,and make merry: 24 for this my son was dead, and is alive again; he 
was lost, and is found. And they began to be merry. 25 Now his elder son was in 
the field: and as he came and drew nigh to the house, he heard music and dancing. 
26 And he called to him one of the servants, and inquired what these things might be. 
27 And he said unto him, Thy brother is come; and thy father hath killed the fatted 
calf, because he hath received him safe and sound. 28 But he was angry, and would 
not go in: and his father came out, and entreated him. 29 But he answered and said 
to his father, Lo, these many years do I serve thee, and I never transgressed a com- 
mandment of thine; and yet thou never gavest me a kid, that I might make merry with 
my friends: 30 but when this thy son came, who hath devoured thy living with harlots, 
thou killedst for him the fatted calf. 31 And he said unto him, Son, thou art ever 
with me, and all that is mine is thine. 32 But it was meet to make merry and be glad: 
for this thy brother was dead, and is alive again; and was lost, and is found. 

16 [14 And the Pharisees, who were lovers of money, heard all these things; and 
they scoffed at him.] 15 And he said unto them, Ye are they that justify yourselves 
in the sight of men; but God knoweth your hearts: for that which is exalted among 
men is an abomination in the sight of God. 

το Now there was a certain rich man, and he was clothed in purple and fine linen, 
faring sumptuously every day: 20 and a certain beggar named Lazarus was laid at 
his gate, full of sores, 21 and desiring to be fed with the crumbs that fell from the rich 
man’s table; yea, even the dogs came and licked his sores. 22 And it came to pass, 
that the beggar died, and that he was carried away by the angels into Abraham’s 
bosom: and the rich man also died, and was buried. 23 And in Hades he lifted up his 
eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom. 24 
And he cried and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that 


213 


86 HISTORICAL AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES 


he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue; for I am in anguish in 
this flame. 25 But Abraham said, Son, remember that thou in thy lifetime receivedst 
thy good things, and Lazarus in like manner evil things: but now here he is comforted, 
and thou art in anguish. 26 And besides all this, between us and you there is a great 
gulf fixed, that they that would pass from hence to you may not be able, and that none 
may cross over from thence to us. 27 And he said, I pray thee therefore, father, that 
thou wouldest send him to my father’s house; 28 for I have five brethren; that he may 
testify unto them, lest they also come into this place of torment. 29 But Abraham 
saith, They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them. 30 And he said, Nay, 
father Abraham: but if one go to them from the dead, they will repent. 31 And he 
said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, 
if one rise from the dead. 

to 25 And behold, a certain lawyer stood up and made trial of him, saying, Teacher, 
what shall I do to inherit eternal life? 26 And he said unto him, What is written in 
the law? how readest thou? 27 And he answering said, Thou shalt love the Lord 
thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with 
all thy mind; and thy neighbor as thyself. 28 And he said unto him, Thou hast 
answered right: this do, and thou shalt live. 29 But he, desiring to justify himself, 
said unto Jesus, And who is my neighbor? 30 Jesus made answer and said, A certain 
man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho; and he fell among robbers, who both 
stripped him and beat him, and departed, leaving him half dead. 31 And by chance 
a certain priest was going down that way: and when he saw him, he passed by on the 
other side. 32 And in like manner a Levite also, when he came to the place, and saw 
him, passed by on the other side. 33 But a certain Samaritan, as he journeyed, came 
where he was: and when he saw him, he was moved with compassion, 34 and came to 
him, and bound up his wounds, pouring on them oil and wine; and he set him on his 
own beast, and brought him to an inn, and took care of him. 35 And on the morrow 
he took out two shillings, and gave them to the host, and said, Take care of him; and 
whatsoever thou spendest more, I, when I come back again, will repay thee. 36 Which 
of these three, thinkest thou, proved neighbor unto him that fell among the robbers ? 
37 And he said, He that showed mercy on him. And Jesus said unto him, Go, and do 
thou likewise. 

17 12 And ashe entered into a certain village, there met him ten men that were 
lepers, who stood afar off: 13 and they lifted up their voices, saying, Jesus, Master, 
have mercy on us. 14 And when he saw them, he said unto them, Go and show your- 
selves unto the priests. And it came to pass, as they went, they were cleansed. 15 
And one of them, when he saw that he was healed, turned back, with a loud voice 
glorifying God; 16 and he fell upon his face at his feet, giving him thanks: and he 
was a Samaritan. 17 And Jesus answering said, Were not the ten cleansed? but 
where are the nine? 18 Were there none found that returned to give glory to God, 
save this stranger? 1g And he said unto him, Arise, and go thy way: thy faith hath 
made thee whole. 

18 9 And he spake also this parable unto certain who trusted in themselves that 
they were righteous, and set all others at nought: τὸ Two men went up into the temple 
to pray; the one a Pharisee, and the other a publican. 11 The Pharisee stood and 
prayed thus with himself, God, I thank thee, that I am not as the rest of men, extor- 
tioners, unjust, adulterers, or even as this publican. 12 I fast twice in the week; I 
give tithes of all that I get. 13 But the publican, standing afar off, would not lift 


214 


THE SOURCES OF LUKE’S PEREAN SECTION 87 


up so much as his eyes unto heaven, but smote his breast, saying, God, be thou merci- 
ful to me a sinner. 14 I say unto you, This man went down to his house justified 
rather than the other. 

1g And he entered and was passing through Jericho. 2 And behold, a man called 
by name Zaccheus; and he was a chief publican, and he was rich. 3 And he sought 
to see Jesus who he was; and could not for the crowd, because he was little of stature. 
4 And he ran on before, and climbed up into a sycomore tree to see him: for he was to 
pass that way. 5 And when Jesus came to the place, he looked up, and said unto him, 
Zaccheus, make haste, and come down; for to-day I must abide at thy house. 6 And 
he made haste, and came down, and received him joyfully. 7 And when they saw it, 
they all murmured, saying, He is gone in to lodge with a man that isa sinner. 8 And 
Zaccheus stood, and said unto the Lord, Behold, Lord, the half of my goods I give to 
the poor; and if I have wrongfully exacted aught of any man, I restore fourfold. 9 
And Jesus said unto him, To-day is salvation come to this house, forasmuch as he 
also isa son of Abraham. τὸ For the Son of man came to seek and to save that which 
was lost.? 


1 The text of the American Revised Version, copyright, 1901, by Thomas Nelson & Sons, is used by 
permission. ὃ 


[εὐ 
ἘΝ τῶι 

ee τυ δι 
Sia 


The Legal Terms Common to the 
Macedonian Inscriptions and 
the New Testament 


Τὰ 
“Ὁ 


NOV 2¢ 
<2 oet0a 


The Legal Terms Common to 
the Macedonian Inscriptions 
and the New Testament 


WILLIAM DUNCAN FERGUSON, PH.D. 


THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO PRESS 
CHICAGO, ILLINOIS 


COPYRIGHT 1913 By 
Tue UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO 


All Rights Reserved 


Published September 1913 


Composed and Printed By 
The University of Chicago Press 
Chicago, Illinois, U.S.A. 


INTRODUCTION 


The inscriptions upon which this treatise is based are the Greek 
Macedonian inscriptions. Thus far the Corpus does not contain all 
of the Macedonian inscriptions. Dimitsas, having spent ten years 
in making a collection of these inscriptions, published them in Athens, 
in 1896, in two volumes entitled, Ἢ Μακεδονία. In this work Dimitsas 
has included all inscriptions having any reference to Macedonian 
affairs, regardless of the place to which the inscription itself belonged. 
For our present purpose we make use of only those inscriptions which 
had their origin in Macedonia, that is, only those which are geographically 
Macedonian inscriptions. 

This treatise is intended to present an inductive study of the legal 
and governmental terms common to the Macedonian inscriptions and 
the New Testament. The purpose of this investigation is to obtain, 
from the usage of these words in the inscriptions, any available infor- 
mation which may throw light upon their interpretation in the New 
Testament. The object is not to make an exhaustive investigation 
of the meaning and usage of these words in the whole field of Greek 
literature, nor yet to carry the investigation into the New Testament 
itself, but rather to furnish to the student of the New Testament some 
additional data with which to approach his task of interpreting these 
technical terms in the Scriptures. 

The method has been to quote in Greek the statement in which the 
word under consideration occurs; to indicate to what time and place 
the inscription belonged; to give a translation or a paraphrase of a 
sufficient portion of the immediate context to enable the reader to 
understand the shorter passage quoted in Greek; and then to make an 
inductive study of the terms selected, in every inscription in which they 
occur. 

Arabic numerals, unless otherwise specified, refer to the numbers 
assigned to the Macedonian inscriptions by Dimitsas in his Μακεδονία, 
and the Roman numerals refer to the divisions of this treatise. Under 
each Roman numeral a single word, or group of closely related words, 
is treated. The abbreviations used for names of authors are usually 
from the list given by Liddell and Scott. 

I wish to make special mention of my indebtedness to Professor 
Ernest D. Burton of the University of Chicago. His discriminating and 
212) 5 


6 HISTORICAL AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES 


suggestive criticisms, so generously given, greatly stimulated my interest 
and gave direction to my effort. His help has been so many-sided 
that it is impossible to estimate its value. To Professor Edgar Good- 
speed of the University of Chicago I also desire to express my thanks 
and grateful appreciation for his pertinent suggestions on various 
linguistic problems. 


BIBLIOGRAPHY . 
I. A. βουλή. 
I. B. βουλευτής 
11. yepovota 
11. ὃδῆμος 
ΙΝ. διαθήκη 
Ν. δόγμα. 
VI. δοκέω. 
VII. ἐκκλησία 
VIII. κληρονόμος. 
ΙΧ. κλῆρος. 
X. Aarovpyéw, λειτουργία 
ΧΙ. νόμος 
ΧΙ]. πολιτάρχης. 
XIII. πραιτώριον. 
XIV. πρεσβεύω, πρεσβεία, πρεσβευτής, πρεσβύτερος. 
XV. στρατηγός 
XVI. ταμιεῖον 


223] 


TABLE OF CONTENTS 


BIBLIOGRAPHY 


Archdologische Zeitung. Berlin, 1880, pp. 159-61. 

Boeckh, Corpus Inscriptionum Graecarum. Berlin, 1828-1877. 

Bonner, Evidence in Athenian Courts. Chicago, 1905. 

Buck, Greek Dialects. Boston, 1910. 

Burton, The Politarchs in Macedonia and Elsewhere. Chicago, 1808. 

Corpus Inscriptionum Atticarum. 

Cousinéry, Voyage dans la Macédoine. Paris, 1831. 

Deissmann, Bible Studies. Edinburgh, rgot. 

Dittenberger, Orientis Graeci Inscriptiones selectae, Vols. I, II. Leipzig, 1903- 
1905. 

Dittenberger, Sylloge Inscriptionum Graecarum. Leipzig, 1883. 

Dumont, Ephébie Alttique. 2 vols. Paris, 1875, 1876. 

Gardner and Jevons, Manual of Greek Antiquities. New York, 1895. 

Gilbert, Constitutional Antiquities of Sparta and Athens. London and New 
York, 1895. 

Goodspeed, Greek Papyri from the Cairo Museum. Chicago, 1903. 

Goodspeed, Index Patristicus. Leipzig, 1907. 

Grenfell and Hunt, Oxyrhynchus Papyri, Vols. I-IV. London, 1898-1904. 

Hatch, Essays in Biblical Greek. Oxford, 1889. 

Herwerden, Lexicon Graecum Suppletorium et Dialecticum. 1902. 

Hicks and Hill, Greek Historical Inscriptions. Oxford, 1901. 

Josephus, De Bello Judaico. 

Journal of Hellenic Studies, VIII, 1887, 284, 362-63, 424-26. 

Kaibel, Epigrammata Graeca ex Lapidibus Conlecta. Berlin, 1878. 

Kennedy, Sources of N. T. Greek. Edinburgh, 1895. 

King, Demosthenes, The Oration against Leptines. London, 1881. 

Le Bas et Waddington, Voyage en Gréce et en Asie Mineure, Vols. II, III. 
Paris, 1848. 

Miiller, K. O., Die Dorier, Vols. 1, II. Breslau, 1844. 

Norton, A Lexicographical and Historical Study of διαθήκη. Chicago, 1908. 

Pape, Wérterbuch der griechischen Eigennamen. 2 vols. Leipzig, 1884. 

Ramsay, Paul’s Episile to the Galatians. New York, 1900. 

Roberts, Introduction to Greek Epigraphy. Cambridge, 1887. 

Schiirer, The Jewish People in the Time of Jesus Christ. New York, 18ot. 

Searles, Lexicographical Study of the Greek Inscriptions. Chicago, 1898. 

Thumb, Die Griechische Sprache im Zeitalter des Hellenismus. Strassburg, 1901. 

Thumb, Handbuch der Griechischen Dialekte. Heidelberg, 1900. 

Westcott and Hort, The New Testament in the Original Greek, Vol. Il. New 
York, 1808. 


225] 9 


ἡ Νὴ 


NG) 


I ὴ 
' ὴ Ἷ i 


Oi, 
rt ἵ 
Δ ΠΝ 


i 
i 
᾿ 
ἡ 
H 


ΤΑ. βουλή 


(1) I 
᾿Αγαθῇ τύχῃ, 
ἔτους kT ἀπογραφὴ 
ἐφήβων τῶν ἐφηβευσάν- 
των ὑπὸ Λυσίμαχον ᾿Αβι- 
5 διανοῦ τὸν ἐφήβαρχον 
κατὰ τὸ δόγμα τῆς βουλῆς. 

The whole of this inscription is extant, and the first six lines are 
here transcribed. It reads as follows: “In the year 328 a register of 
the ἔφηβοι who became ἔφηβοι under Lysimachus the son of Abidianos 
the ἐφήβαρχος by the decree of the βουλή." Then follows a list of the 
ἔφηβοι. 

This inscription was found over the entrance of the city of Bodena 
(Edessa). Edessa was situated on a table-land between two projec- 
tions of the Bermius Mountains, and was at one time the capital of 
Macedonia. 

Boeckh, reckoning the date found in the inscription (I. 2) from the 
destruction of Corinth, gives us the year 182 A.D. as the date of this 
inscription. 

It here appears that the boys who became ἔφηβοι were under the 
control of an officer called ὁ ἐφήβαρχος, and they were duly registered 
as ἔφηβοι by a decree of the βουλή (cf. CIG, 256, 272B, 275, 276, 
Heliod. 7, 8). The βουλή is the only official body here mentioned, 
and it had authority to confer the rights of citizenship upon the youths 
of the city. This may indicate that in some of the Macedonian cities 
there was only one governing body in the city, as in the case of the 
Sanhedrin in Jerusalem, or it may be that this particular matter, the 
granting of citizenship to the young men was one which pertained to 
the functions of the βουλή. 


(2) 37 
ἀλλ᾽ ἐλέησον ἡμᾶς ὡς 
5 υἱο(ὺ)ὴς αὐτοῦ mpeoB[e]ias καὶ εὐχαῖς π[άντων ἢ 
ἀγγέλων [καὶ] προφητῶν ἀπο... 
μαρτύρων τοῖς σοὶ ἀρέσασ(ι) 
Ae Ee es βουλῆς κόσμου ἀμήν. 
227] 11 


12 HISTORICAL AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES 


Ἔνθάδε κεῖτε ᾿Ιωαννήσκη τοῦ το--- 


τ ΝῊ ter te ἀ]ναπαυσαμένη ἐν Χριστῴ. 


The whole of this mortuary inscription is extant except for slight 
mutilations. It is here transcribed from the middle of ]. 4 to the end 
of the inscription. It was placed on the monument of a certain Cyprian 
whose tomb had been destroyed during a persecution of the Christians, 
and the part quoted above is in the form of a prayer by those who 
erected the monument and who in some sense regarded themselves 
as hissons. It reads thus: “but have mercy upon us as his sons because 
of the supplications and prayers of all the angels and of the prophets 
and of the witnesses to those things which are pleasing to thee, [and 
deliver us from (καὶ ῥῦσαι ἡμᾶς ἀπὸ] the counsel of the world. Amen.” 

This inscription was found in the outer wall of a church in Bodena. 
Its exact date is not known, but the phrase, ἀναπαυσαμένη ἐν Χριστῷ, 
marks it as belonging to the Christian era. 

Since the last part of 1. 6 and the first part of |. 8 are wanting, the 
exact relationship of the phrase, βουλῆς κόσμου ἀμήν, to the context 
cannot be determined with certainty. In the New Testament the 
word βουλή almost invariably means ‘‘counsel,’”’ and κόσμος frequently 
denotes ‘‘men,” or “‘the ungodly multitude.” That the inscription 
is of a religious character is evident. The opening words of the sentence 
beginning on 1. 4, ἐλέησον ἡμᾶς, are used at the present time in the 
liturgy of the Greek church. The ἀμήν at the close of the sentence 
is the word commonly employed in ending a prayer. The thought 
expressed is that of petition or prayer. It thus appears that βουλῆς 
is here used in the closing phrase of a prayer, and that it is an abstract 
term having a usage parallel to that found in the New Testament. 
In Luke 7:30, τὴν βουλὴν τοῦ θεοῦ denotes the counsel of God (cf. 
Acts 2:23; 20:27, etc.). The βουλή in the inscription pretty certainly 
denotes counsel, and probably κόσμος denotes the ungodly people. 
According to this interpretation there seems to be a contrast between 
the prayers and supplications of the angels and of the prophets on the 
one hand, and the counsel of the world on the other. 


(3) 5° 
Ἢ βουλὴ καὶ [ὃ δῆμος] Ποπίλιον 
Σουμμον νεώτερον. 
The whole of this inscription is extant and is here transcribed. It. 
was found in the ruins of an old wall in Beroea, a city of Macedonia 
228 


LEGAL TERMS IN MACEDONIAN INSCRIPTIONS AND THE N.T. 13 


lying about seven hours south of Edessa, and twelve west of Thessa- 
lonica. The date is not known, but the Latin name, Ποπίλιος Σοῦμμος, 
points to the Roman period. The two following inscriptions (51, 52) 
belong to the same place, and probably to about the same time. 

In monumental inscriptions the name of the person or persons 
erecting the monument, and the name of the person for whom it was 
erected are usually given, while the verb of erecting or setting up is 
often omitted. It here appears that the βουλή and the δῆμος erected 
a monument to Ποπίλιος Sovppos νεώτερος. The term βουλή is used in 
its technical sense referring to a civil body, the council of the city. 


(4) 51 
Ἢ βουλὴ καὶ of νέοι 
K. Ποπίλλιον Πρόκλον ᾿Ἰουνια- 
νὸν Πύθωνα τὸν γυμνασίαρχον 
ἀλείψαντα καὶ λούσαντα δι᾽ ὅλης 


5 ἡμέρας πανδημεί. 


The whole of this inscription is extant, and is here transcribed. 
For place and date see I. A. (3). It reads as follows: “ὙΠῸ Council 
and the boys erect this monument to C. Popillius Proclus Junianus 
Python the gymnasiarch who spent his time anointing and bathing 
the boys throughout the whole day.” 

It is to be observed that the βουλή and the νέοι are represented 
as acting together in erecting a monument in honor of the gymnasiarch. 
This is the only instance in the Macedonian inscriptions in which the 
βουλή and the νέοι are thus associated. Elsewhere, such official 
action is always attributed either to ἣ βουλή καὶ ὁ δῆμος, or to either 
one of these bodies acting by itself. In this case, however, the boys 
share with the βουλή in honoring the gymnasiarch, because in his 
official capacity as superintendent of the gymnasia he had devoted 
all his time to caring for the boys. This does not indicate that the 
νέοι had a political standing. 


(5) 52 
Βεροιαζί]ων ἡ βουλὴ καὶ 6 [δῆμος] 
Tc . . . . avov Πτολεμαῖον 


. τὴν τῶν σεβαστῶν 


This inscription is in a badly mutilated condition, and is here tran- 
scribed. It was found ina church in Beroea. It appears that the βουλή 
229 


14 HISTORICAL AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES 


and the δῆμος erected a monument in honor of the person whose name 
is partly obliterated in 1. 2. 

It is expressly stated that this is the βουλή of the Beroeans. In 
Nos. 50 and 52 δῆμος has been restored by the editor. In No. 50 it 
may have been originally 4 βουλὴ καὶ οἱ νέοι, as in 51:1, and in 52:1 
there is also the possibility of such a restoration as νέοι. These are 
the only inscriptions found in Beroea in which the βουλή is mentioned, 
and in each case it is used in a technical sense, denoting a political body. 
The only unusual feature in its usage is its association with the νέοι 
in 51:1. 

(6) 258 


10 κ(αὶ) τελευτῶν οὐδὲ τῆς 
κατὰ τὴν βουλὴν τε(ι)μῆς ἠμέλησεν, 


τό ἔδοξεν τῇ βουλῇ 
τὴν τοῦ ἀνδρὸς σεμνότητα κ(αὶ) βούλησιν 
ἀποδέξεσθαι 
ὁ ἐπιμελη- 
26 τὴς τῶν τῆς βουλῆς δηναρίων Λούκιος 


Λουκρήτιος Πούδης. 


The whole of this inscription is extant, but only those clauses are 
here transcribed which contain the term βουλή. It was found at 
Tzepikobon, a small town about five hours from Bitolia in Pelagonia, 
and about one hundred and thirty-seven miles from Thessalonica. 
The date (243) contained in the inscription if reckoned from the 
Achaean era (146 B.C.) corresponds to 97 A.D. 

Beginning at the middle of |. 9, the inscription runs thus: ‘‘ Inasmuch 
as Philo both greatly honored his own native land, and when dying 
lacked nothing of honor toward the βουλή, but left to it, by will, 1,500 
denarii on the condition that from the interest accruing from it annually 
the Council should celebrate a festive day in honor of Οὐέττιος Βωλανός 
to be held on the fourteenth day before the Calends of November, it is 
decreed by the βουλή to accept the offer of Philo in the proposed con- 
ditions written by him in the will, to receive the money, and, from the 
interest on it, to celebrate annually the festal day, and not to spend any 
of the principal for other need, nor to spend any of the interest except 
as Philo who gave it had planned. The money was counted and the 
curator of the βουλή received it.”’ 

230 


LEGAL TERMS IN MACEDONIAN INSCRIPTIONS AND THE N.T. 15 


Since the δῆμος is not mentioned in this inscription, it may be 
inferred either that the βουλή was the only governmental body in 
Tzepikobon, or that the matter in question—that of accepting a be- 
quest—was one which belonged to the functions of the βουλή apart 
from the δῆμος. Coming, as it does, at the close of the first century 
A.D., it is of first-rate importance in determining the authority of the 
βουλή in this part of Macedonia during the New Testament period. 

It is seen that at Tzepikobon at this time: 

a) The πολιτάρχαι convened the council (ll. 5-6). 

b) That money might be left by will (xara διαθήκην) to the βουλή to 
be expended for public purposes as directed by the testator. 

c) That the βουλή had authority to accept such a bequest and to 
carry out the required conditions. 

d) The βουλή had an officer who took charge of money committed 
to it. 


(7) 365 
8 κατὰ τὰ γενόμενα ὑπὸ τῆς Kpatio- 
9 [της βουλ]ῆς καὶ τοῦ δήμου ψηφίσματα. 


Only a part of this inscription is preserved, and the part which is 
found is in a very fragmentary condition. A part of ll. 8 and g is 
here transcribed. It was found in Thessalonica, and contains its 
own date, 289 (1. 14), which corresponds to 143 A.D. 

The name of the person who is referred to as having left to the city 
of Thessalonica a legacy is partly defaced so that editors differ as to 
whether it is the name of a man or of a woman. According to the 
restoration of Dimitsas it was a woman who made the bequest (Il. 5-6), 
but according to Hogarth it was a man (Jour. Hell. Studies, VIII, 1887, 
363). 

The inscription as we possess it is so fragmentary that it is hardly 
safe to venture on a translation of it. Hogarth says: “It is too frag- 
mentary to do more than conjecture that it refers to certain hunting- 
grounds left by the will of one Herennius, either to the city of Thessa- 
lonica or to some religious foundation therein, and the object of the 
inscription would seem to be to record the terms of their future regu- 
lation” (Jour. Hell. Studies, VIII, 1887, 362). In addition to this state- 
ment it is seen that these games were to be conducted, according to the 
terms decreed by the βουλή and the δῆμος, by those who were politarchs. 
Then follow the names of the politarchs, the time of the year at which 
the games were to be held, and the date of the inscription. 

231 


16 HISTORICAL AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES 


In Tzepikobon it is the βουλή alone which is represented as receiving 
money through a bequest. Here it is the βουλή and the δῆμος acting 
together who accept the money and direct the use of it according to 
the terms of the διαθήκη. This tends to show that the cities of Mace- 
donia did not have a uniform political system. There is a difference 
of forty-six years in the dates of these two inscriptions (258 and 365), 
but when compared with other inscriptions, some of an earlier and some 
of a later date, it is seen that the difference in time will not account for 
the fact that at Tzepikobon there is only one political body mentioned, 
while at Thessalonica there are two, the βουλή and the δῆμος, exercising 
precisely the same functions as those of the βουλή at Tzepikobon. 
The terms σύνκλητος (1. 5) and βουλή (I. 9) are used interchangeably. 


(8) 668 
5 "AdAa μὲν βουλαὶ ἀνθρώπων, 
ἄλλα δὲ θεὸς κελεύει. 


The whole of this inscription is extant, and the last two lines are 
here transcribed. It was found in a church in Thessalonica, and bears 
the date 1705 A.D. It is apparently an inscription of dedication at a 
time when the church was repaired or rebuilt. It is stated in the 
nscription that these things took place at the departure of the most 
holy Ignatius from the island of Lesbos. The two lines which are 
transcribed seem to be in the form of a proverb: “‘Men counsel one 
thing, but otherwise God commands.” 

The use of βουλή here is of value solely as showing what modern 
Greek usage is. It has the same meaning as that which it usually has 
in the New Testament, “counsel”’ or “purpose.” 


(9) 671 

I Ἔδοξεν τῆι βουλῆι καὶ τῶι δήμωι. 
8 δεδόχθαι τῆι βουλῆι καὶ τῶι δήμωι. 
17 ἀναγράψαι δὲ τόδε τὸ ψήφισμα τὴν 


βουλὴν εἰς τὸ βουλευτήριον. 
20 Ἔδοξεν τῆι βουλῆι καὶ τῶι δήμωι 


232 


LEGAL TERMS IN MACEDONIAN INSCRIPTIONS AND THE N.T. 17 
27 δεδόχθαι τῆι βουλῆι καὶ τῶι δήμωι 


Ἡ πόλις Θεσσαλονικέων Δηλίων τῆι 
46 βουλῆι καὶ τῶι δήμωι χαίρειν. 


The whole of this inscription is extant, but only those portions of it 
are here transcribed in which the term (βουλή) under consideration 
at this point occurs. It was found in Delos in 1885, and contains three 
decrees. According to Dimitsas (Mak., I, 565), it belongs within the 
period 220-215 B.c. 


FIRST DECREE 


Because of the completeness and importance of this inscription, 
and inasmuch as it affords a good illustration of the form and character 
of many of these inscriptions, a translation of the whole of it is here 
appended: ‘It is decreed by the βουλή and the δῆμος; Boulon the son 
of Tunnon made the motion. Since Admetos while a πρόξενος (at 
Delos) supplied many great necessaries to the temple and to the Delians, 
both publicly and privately, always to whoever of the citizens chanced 
to meet him, and in order therefore that the δῆμος appear grateful to 
as many as honor the temple, and have been publicly announced as 
showing kindness to the βουλή of Delos; be it decreed by the βουλή 
and the δῆμος to honor him with the sacred crown of laurel and with 
two bronze images, and that the sacred herald proclaim him publicly 
in the theater during the sacrifices to Apollo, and whenever the choruses 
of boys contend let proclamation be made; and let the δῆμος of Delos 
adorn Admetos Bokros a Macedonian with the sacred crown of laurel 
and with two bronze images on account of his reverence toward the 
temple and of his good-will toward the δῆμος of Delos, and let the βουλή 
inscribe this decree in the council chamber, and let the sacred officers 
inscribe it in the temple. Cynthiades the son of Teleson put it to the 
vote.” 

SECOND DECREE 


“Tt is decreed by the βουλή and the δῆμος. Boulon the son of 
Tunnon made the motion. Since Admetos the πρόξενος supplied 
many great needs to the temple and the δῆμος of Delos, both publicly 
and privately, always, to whoever of the citizens chanced to meet him; 
and in order therefore that the δῆμος appear grateful, to as many as 
honor the temple and have been proclaimed for showing them kindness; 
with good luck, be it decreed by the βουλή and the δῆμος to set up two 

233 


18 HISTORICAL AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES 


bronze images of the πρόξενος Admetos, the one in the temple and the 
other in Thessalonica, and to set the one in the temple beside the altar 
of the god of the city, and to inscribe upon the image this inscription; 
‘The δῆμος of Delos erects this to Admetos the son of Bokros a Mace- 
donian, on account of his valor and of his piety toward the temple and 
of his good-will for the δῆμος of Delos;’ and to send an envoy who 
when he arrives at Thessalonica shall hand over the decrees, and shall 
require the δῆμος of Thessalonica, since it is a friend and kindred of 
the δῆμος of Delos, to give a place as good as possible for the setting up 
of the crown and of the image of Admetos, containing the same inscrip- 
tion which the δῆμος set up also in Delos, and doing these things they 
will show gratitude to the δῆμος of Delos. Cynthiades the son of 
Teleson put it to the vote. Boulon the son of Tunnon was chosen 
envoy.” 


THIRD DECREE 


“The city of Thessalonica to the βουλή and the δῆμος of Delos 
greeting. Boulon who was sent an envoy by you, having arrived and 
having delivered over the decrees by means of which you honored 
Admetos the son of Bokros, and having come into the ἐκκλησία, and 
making a speech in accordance with the things decreed, we accepted 
these things in accordance with your wish, and of the decree in which 
we submitted to the demand made by you we have sent you the copy 
just as you see it. Sosipater the president, and the. . . . Menander, 
Nicodemos, Philodemos, Hippias . . . . made a motion. Since Boulon 
who was sent by the δῆμος of Delos an envoy to the city (Thessalonica) 
delivered up the decrees in which the δῆμος, having advised to render 
thanks to Admetos the son of Bokros on account of his good deeds, 
has adorned him with the divine crown of laurel and with two bronze 
images of which it was voted to place one in the sacred place beside 
the altar of the god of the city, and to place the other in Thessalonica, 
and the inscribing of the crown and the setting up of the image shall 
be executed just as it was written in the inscription by the decree, and 
they esteemed our city worthy affectionately to give to him as good a 
place as possible both in accordance with the things decreed and with 
the speech of Boulon; be it decreed by the βουλή, to commend the 
δῆμος of Delos, because it gave thanks to the Thessalonian fellow- 
citizens of Admetos when it crowned him on account of the good deeds 
mentioned, esteeming him worthy of the things decreed, and be it decreed 
that the one presiding over the contests pay for the inscribing of the 

234 


LEGAL TERMS IN MACEDONIAN INSCRIPTIONS AND THE N.T. 19 


crown and for the setting up of the image on whatever place seemed 
best to the members of the βουλή. 

The first decree (ll. 1-19) was passed by the βουλή and the δῆμος of 
Delos in honor of Admetos of Thessalonica who was a πρόξενος at 
Delos. On account of his benefactions to the temple and to the people 
of Delos it was decreed by the βουλή and the δῆμος that the herald 
should proclaim him in the theater during the games, and crown him 
with the sacred crown of laurel, and the βουλή was to inscribe this 
decree in their council chamber, and the temple officers were to inscribe 
it in the temple. 

The second decree (ll. 20-45) is similar to the first, with two addi- 
tions, the one concerning the placing of one of the images of Admetos 
in the temple beside the altar of Zeus, and the other referring to 
the choosing of Boulon to go as an envoy to Thessalonica with this 
decree. 

The third decree (ll. 46-77) pertains to the receiving of the envoy 
from Delos by the ἐκκλησία of Thessalonica, and the reply of Thessa- 
lonica to Delos. It relates that Boulon the envoy from Delos had 
been received at a meeting of the ἐκκλησία, and that in a speech before 
that body he had presented to them the request of Delos that they also 
share in honoring Admetos. His plea was favorably received by the 
βουλή of Thessalonica, and they decreed that one of the bronze images 
of Admetos should be set up in Thessalonica, and that the crown be 
inscribed, in accordance with the request of Delos. 

It is seen from this inscription: 

a) That both of these cities, Delos and Thessalonica, possessed 
a βουλή and a δῆμος. 

ὃ) That the βουλή and the δῆμος of Delos passed a decree honoring 
the πρόξενος from Thessalonica for the services he had rendered to 
Delos. 

6) That upon the βουλή and the δῆμος devolved the duty and the 
right to decide where the decree should be inscribed, and the statues 
set up. 

d) That official matters between two cities were transacted by the 
βουλή and the δῆμος of the respective cities, through the agency of an 
envoy (πρεσβευτής). 

6) That the man chosen as envoy was also a member of the βουλή. 

f) That the βουλή of Thessalonica took the initiative and recom- 
mended to the δῆμος that Admetos should be honored, but that the 
final authority in dealing with the matter rested with the δῆμος. 

235 


20 HISTORICAL AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES 


(10) 675 
36 δεδόχθαι Ληταίων τῆι βουλῆι καὶ τῶι δήμωι 


The whole of this inscription is extant, but only the clause in which 
the term βουλή occurs is here transcribed. It was inscribed on a large 
stone slab, and was found in the village of Aivati, a small town four 
hours north of Thessalonica, in Mygdonia. The date contained in the 
inscription (1. 49) corresponds to 117 B.C. 

The inscription records that the politarchs of the city of Lete, in 
a προβούλευμα, proclaimed the Roman treasurer Marcus Annius a 
benefactor of Macedonia and of their own city, and they erected to 
his honor a stone slab in the market-place on which they placed this 
inscription,: because he had twice fought with them against hostile 
invaders, and had in each case defeated the enemy. For this double 
victory the βουλή and the δῆμος voted to crown him, and to establish 
in his honor a cavalry contest to be held once a year. Beginning at 
the middle of ]. 36 it reads as follows: ‘‘ Because of which be it decreed 
by the βουλή and by the δῆμος to praise Marcus Annius the son of 
Poplius, the Roman treasurer, and to crown him with the olive wreath, 
and to establish for him a cavalry contest, in the month of Aatotos.” 

It appears that at this time Lete had local self-government, and that 
here, as well as in Thessalonica, there were two political bodies, a 
βουλή and a δῆμος. 

As to the relation of the βουλή to the δῆμος, and their method of 
conducting business, it is seen that the βουλή took the initiative (671: 70, 
675:2-3). The βουλή first held a meeting by itself, in which it took 
any matter of business under its own consideration and formulated 
a statement regarding it, which was then presented to the δῆμος at a 
joint meeting of the βουλή and the δῆμος. This preliminary statement 
was drawn up in the form of a resolution, and was called a προβούλευμα, 
and if approved by a vote of the δῆμος it became an authoritative 
decree. At Lete this προβούλευμα was presented to the δῆμος by the 
πολιτάρχαι, a variation from the usage of Athens where the office of 
πολιτάρχης did not exist. In Athens the προβούλευμα was usually 
presented to the δῆμος by the herald, and defended before the assembly 
(ἐκκλησία, the joint meeting of the βουλή and the δῆμος) by the man 
who first made the motion in the βουλή (Cf. Gilbert, Greek Const. Ant., 
PP. 293-96). 

The βουλή and the δῆμος voted to grant certain honors to Marcus 
Annius, the Roman treasurer, and to choose three envoys (πρεσβευταί) 

236 


LEGAL TERMS IN MACEDONIAN INSCRIPTIONS AND THE N.T. 2] 


from among the βουλευταί (1. 49), who should convey to Marcus 
Annius the proposal of the δῆμος to honor him, and to urge upon him 
the acceptance of these honors. They also provided for the writing and 
the setting-up of this decree in a public place. In this case the writing 
of the decree and the setting-up of the stele were to be in the hands of 
the πολιτάρχαι and of the treasurer of the city. Lete had its own 
local treasurer, and the jurisdiction of the Roman treasurer seems to 
have extended over matters of general interest, rather than to matters 
of the local city government. 


(11) 1130 
3 κατὰ ψήφισμα βουλῆς καὶ δήμου 
5 δεδόχθαι τῆι βουλῇ καὶ τῷ δήμῳ 


The whole of this inscription is extant, and the two clauses in which 
the term βουλή occurs are transcribed. It was found at Thasos. The 
exact date to which it belongs is not known, but according to Perrot 
it is to be assigned to the period immediately preceding the time of 
Alexander the Great (Dim., Max. II, p. 856). 

It is a decree passed by the βουλή and the δῆμος of Thasos praising 
a certain Poluaretos and granting to him the rights of citizenship 
because of his benefactions to the city of Thasos, and to the people 
privately, while he was πρόξενος at Thasos. 

Beginning on |. 2 it reads thus: ‘‘The θεῦροί made the inscription 
according to the decree of the βουλή and the δῆμος. With good luck; 
since Polyaretos the son of Hystias, being a πρόξενος and a benefactor 
of the city, has been a good man toward the city of Thasos, and does 
whatever good he can, both publicly to the city and privately to whoever 
chances to meet him; be it decreed by the βουλή and the δῆμος to 
praise Polyaretos the son of Hystias on account of his valor and of his 
good-will toward the city of Thasos, and that Polyaretos be a citizen,” 
etc. 

It appears from this inscription that Thasos had a βουλή and a 
δῆμος, three ἄρχοντες (I. 1), and three θεῦροί who inscribed this decree 
(Il. 2, το]. 


(12) 1140 
Σῶμα κόρης ἁρπαχθὲν ἀνηλίκῳ εὐθαλεῖ ὥρῃ 
παρθένου ἀνθοφόρου τύμβος ὅδ᾽ ἐγκατέχει. 
ψυχὴ δ᾽ ἀθανάτων βουλαῖς ἐπιδήμιός ἐστιν 
ἄστροις, καὶ ἱερὸν χῶρον ἔχει μακάριον. 
237 


22 HISTORICAL AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES 


The whole of this mortuary inscription is extant. The first four 
lines are here transcribed. It was found in Thasos. The date has 
not been determined. The contrast between body and soul which 
occurs here (Il. 1-3) is found as early as Plato (Tim. 42b-d). A trans- 
lation of the portion which is transcribed is as follows: “This tomb 
contains within it the body of a girl, a flower-bearing virgin, snatched 
away in the tender bloom of immaturity. But the soul by the counsels of 
the immortals is sojourning in the stars, and has a sacred, happy abode.”’ 

Liddell and Scott refer to this inscription under the word ἀνθοφόρος 
which they interpret as denoting a flower-bearer in a religious rite. 
There is a contrast between σῶμα (1.1) and ψυχή (1.3). The contrast 
is not only between the σῶμα and the ψυχή, but also between their places 
of abode. The tomb holds the body of the maid, but her soul, by the 
counsels of the immortals, is sojourning (ἐπιδήμιος: cf. Ap. Rh, 
I, 827) among the stars, and has a sacred, happy abode. It thus appears 
that this inscription is of a religious character, and that it discloses to 
us the conception of the writers as to the existence of the soul after it 
has left the body. 

As the term βουλή is here used it evidently means counsels, and is 
used in an abstract rather than a concrete sense. The latter is usual in 
the inscriptions. The usage of βουλή in this inscription is of significance 
in its bearing upon its usage in the New Testament, because it is here 
used in the abstract sense with a meaning similar to that which it has 
in the New Testament, and because there is a certain influence or 
authority attributed to the counsels (βουλαί) of the immortals. A 
similar conception meets us in the New Testament, where seven out 
of the thirteen occurrences of βουλή are used of the counsel of God, and 
to the counsel of God is ascribed an authority similar to that which 
it has in the inscription. The βουλή of God has an ethical value, and 
expresses an ethical principle, or standard of conduct for man. In 
Luke 7:30 the νομικοί are regarded as making a wrong choice morally 
when they set aside the βουλή of God. In the inscription the βουλαί 
of the immortals are associated with the welfare of a soul, and deter- 
mine its place of abode. The βουλαί of the immortals and the βουλή 
of God are both related to the well-being of the soul. 


(13) 1141 
2 kat[ a] ψήφισμα [βουλῆς καὶ δήμου. 
Only a fragment of this inscription is preserved. There is not one 
complete line of the original inscription left. The restoration of βουλή 
238 


LEGAL TERMS IN MACEDONIAN INSCRIPTIONS AND THE N.T. 23 


in the line transcribed rests on good authority; it is supported by 
comparison with other inscriptions. We are, however, not dependent 
upon this restoration for the fact that there was a βουλή at Thasos 
where this inscription was found. 


(14) 1369 
21 καὶ ὀμόσαι τοῦ δ]ήμου ὅν ἄν ἡ βουλή συγγράφῃ 


Only a part of this inscription is found. There is no means of 
telling how much of it has been lost, but only the latter portion of it 
now remains. There is but one occurrence of the term βουλή in the 
extant part of it. It was found at Thasos where it had been built 
into the wall of a Byzantine church, and belongs to the year 411 B.c. 
It records the revolutionary action of the oligarchical party which in 
that year attempted, and for a time successfully, to overthrow the 
government of the δῆμος (Thucyd. VIII). 

It appears from this inscription that: 

a) The oligarchy canceled all special privileges formerly granted 
by the δῆμος (Il. 1-4). 

b) Rewards were voted to those who had assisted in the revolution 
(4-5). 

c) The oligarchy restored to civic rights all those who had been 
exiled by the δῆμος (Il. 5-9). 

d) It promised certain honors and immunities to anyone who 
would contribute money to the city (Il. 9-12). 

e) Provision was made in this decree against a counter-revolution 
by voting that this decree was to be permanent. 

f) This decree was to be inscribed and set up in a public place 
(ll. 16-17). 

g) Copies of the decree were to be inscribed and preserved (Il. 17-19). 

h) An oath of allegiance to the new government was demanded 
(Il. 19-21). The line transcribed above reads: ‘And whomever of 
the δῆμος the βουλή write down shall take the oath.’”’ The δῆμος here 
referred to (1. 21) was a nominal body of five thousand, created by 
the oligarchy, but without any active part in the government. It 
must not be confounded with the δῆμος mentioned in |. 2, whose 
authority was for a time set aside by the oligarchy. 

The term βουλή is here used with reference to the oligarchy, and 
does not have the same connotation as in the other Macedonian inscrip- 
tions. This body which is here called a βουλή was opposed to the 

239 


24 HISTORICAL AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES 


democratic principles of government for which the βουλή and the 
δῆμος of other Macedonian cities stood. It appears, therefore, that 
the term βουλή does not always carry with it a reference to the kind of 
organization for which it stands. It may be applied to political bodies 
representing fundamentally different conceptions of government. This 
fact may be of importance in considering the different names by which 
Josephus designates the Sanhedrin of Jerusalem. 

In the Macedonian inscriptions the word βουλή, or some form of it, 
is found in fourteen inscriptions, and in these it occurs twenty-two 
times. In addition to this, the word βουλευτής, which occurs in 744:1, 
indicates the existence of a βουλή at Olynthus. In two of these inscrip- 
tions (668:5; 1140:3) the plural number occurs with the meaning of 
counsels or plans, and in 37:8 the singular number of the noun is found, 
in a prayer, with the same meaning. In every other occurrence of 
the word in the inscriptions it is used in its technical sense denoting 
one of the civil bodies commonly found in these Macedonian cities, 
Edessa (1, 37), Beroea (50, 51, 52), Tzepikobon (258), Thessalonica 
(365, 668), Lete (675), Olynthus (744), and in two other cities which 
Dimitsas designates as Macedonian, Delos (671) and Thasos (1130, 
1140, 1141, 1369). 

The time covered by these inscriptions which refer to the βουλή 
extends from the latter part of the fifth century B.c. to the end of the 
second century A.D., and probably later in several instances. 

In the following table is given a list of those towns or cities in which 
there is mention of a βουλή, the number of the inscription, and the date 
of each so far as they are known. It will be seen that these cities extend 
to every part of Macedonia, and, in point of time, the βουλή is met 
with, as a civil or governmental body in these cities during a period 
of at least six centuries. 


Name of City No. of Inscription Date 
( Shes Preceding the time of 
Thavos pitts Alexander the Great 
Sere ae Sone Fe fae ΤΥ te tae ease > 
| 1369 4II B.C. 
Delos eyes akin τες 671 220-215 B.C. 
Tete vas eee ναι net eke rate 675 ΤΊ B.C: 
Rzenikopons Ἐπ. ΟΣ ἘΚ Εν τις 258 97 A.D. 
Mhessalouicass aioe totale 305 143 A.D. 
I 182 A.D. 
Bidessaiicnvcci varied celal aia } 39 > 
Beroea ocean anes SON Sr 52 During the Roman period 
Olynthus sy \oeet iene 744 ? 


LEGAL TERMS IN MACEDONIAN INSCRIPTIONS AND THE N.T. 25 


As to the functions of the βουλή, members of it were frequently 
chosen as envoys. At Lete the βουλή prepared the προβούλευμα, but 
the politarchs presented it to the δῆμος (675:2-3). In Edessa the 
young men were formally registered as ἔφηβοι by a decree of the βουλή 
(1:1-6). In Tzepikobon the βουλή was convened by the politarchs 
(258). It had authority to receive legacies bequeathed to it for the 
benefit of the city. The βουλή had an officer who acted as treasurer 
for it (258). Upon the βουλή, sometimes in conjunction with the 
δῆμος, rested the responsibility of erecting public statues, setting up 
inscriptions, and in general, the care of public documents. They 
themselves did not personally take charge of the writing and setting 
up of inscriptions, or of the care of public documents, but they directed 
the officers who did take charge of all such work. 

Thus far we have been considering the functions of the βουλή, but 
more often the βουλή and the δῆμος are represented as acting together. 
That the βουλή had functions distinct from those of the δῆμος is seen 
in the matter of their bringing forward a προβούλευμα for the considera- 
tion of the δῆμος (675:2-3), but for the most part they are mentioned 
as acting together. They seem always to have been associated with 
some city, but whether or not their jurisdiction extended beyond their 
own local city is not known. They seemed to constitute the final 
authority in all civil and political matters. 

Two distinct usages of βουλή have been observed in the inscriptions. 
The one in which βουλή denotes counsel or plan occurs only in three 
inscriptions (37:8; 668:5; 1140:3) of a religious character. One of 
these (1140:3) is a modern Greek inscription, hence there are only two 
instances of this usage which pertain to the New Testament period. 
This usage finds a parallel in the common use of the term in the New 
Testament. Not only is the meaning of the word the same in both, 
but there is also this in common, that the literature in which they occur 
is in both cases religious; in one of the inscriptions (37) it is pretty 
certainly Christian religious ideas that find expression; in the other 
(668) a Greek religious atmosphere forms the background in which 
the usage occurs. The difference in the proportion of usages between 
the inscriptions and the New Testament is to be accounted for by the 
difference of their subject-matter. 

The other usage is the one almost invariably found in the inscrip- 
tions, that is, with a technical meaning denoting a political body. 
The inscriptions are for the most part of an official character. They 
contain records which are of interest to the public, and which are 

241 


20 HISTORICAL AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES 


generally given in a legal formula, and so the prevailing usage of βουλή 
is, in them, technical. 

To this technical Macedonian usage there is a parallel, partial at 
least, in Palestinian usage where the chief governing body of the Jews 
was called a βουλή (Josephus, B. J., II, xv, 6; II, xvi, 2; V, xiii, 1). 
Before reaching a final conclusion as to how far this parallel usage of 
the term βουλή denotes political bodies of like character and functions, 
it is necessary to examine the term βουλευτής, and also the terms 
γερουσία and συνέδριον, names by which the governing body of 
Jerusalem was designated. 


242 


18. βουλευτής 


The word βουλευτής occurs four times in the Macedonian inscrip- 
tions (671:77; 675:3, 49; 744:1). 


(1) 671 
καὶ δοῦναι τὸν ἐπὶ τοὺς ἀγῶν[α]ς τῆι 
75 μὲν ἀναγραφῆι τοῦ στεφάνου καὶ mapa... . των wo(?) 


τήρων τῆι ἀναθέσει τῆς εἰκόνος ὃν ἂν [τόπον] δόΐ ξηι] 
τοῖς βουλευταῖς.  ..... 


The most of this inscription is preserved. The part here transcribed 
is sufficient to illustrate the usage of βουλευτής. For the place and date 
of the inscription, and for the translation and explanation of it see 
fA. (0). 

It is seen, from the passage quoted, that the place for the setting- 
up of the image was to be chosen by the βουλευταί. Of the precise 
significance of the term βουλευτής this passage affords us no clear 
indication, but it is doubtless safe to assume that here as elsewhere 
the term is an official designation denoting a member of the βουλή. 
The members of the βουλή of Athens were referred to by the term 
βουλευταί (Arist. Pol. 45. 3). Much additional evidence might be cited 
to show that, in Athens, βουλευτής was the term commonly used to 
designate a member of the βουλή. In the Macedonian inscriptions 
there are two instances which tend strongly to show that a similar 
usage of the term obtained in Macedonia. In 675: 2-3 it is stated that 
the βουλευταί drew up the προβούλευμα. In Athens this was a matter 
which pertained distinctly to the functions of the βουλή. There seems 
then to be a high degree of probability that the βουλευταί here men- 
tioned were the members of the βουλή of Lete. 

In 744:1 reference is made to the fact that a man was twice a 
βουλευτής. It is well known that in Athens a man was eligible for 
membership in the βουλή only twice (Arist. 62. 3). The evident inten- 
tion in the inscription cited was to show that Βαίβιος had received the 
honor of being appointed a βουλευτής as often as it was permitted any 
man to receive that honor. The usage of the term βουλευτής in Mace- 
donia seems then to accord with that of Athens. In both places it 
was used to denote a member of the βουλή. 

243] 27 


28 HISTORICAL AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES 


(2) 675 
2 Anraiwy οἱ πολιτάρχαι, προβουλευσαμέ- 


- a > 
νων τῶν βουλευτῶν, εἶπαν. 


Ν ε / Ν a“ ~ 
49 καὶ εἱρέθησαν πρεσβευταὶ τῶν βουλευτῶν 
"Adatos ᾿Αδαίου, Λύσων Φιλώτου, ᾿Αμύντας Λιέους. 


The whole of this inscription is extant, but only the two clauses 
containing the term βουλευτής are here transcribed. For the place 
to which it belongs and its date see I.A. (10). 

In the first reference, quoted above, it is stated that ‘‘the βουλευταί 
having drawn up the προβούλευμα, the politarchs of Lete made the 
motion.” That is, the politarchs introduced, by a formal resolution, 
the προβούλευμα at a meeting of the ἐκκλησία. In the latter clause, 
“the envoys were chosen from the βουλευταί. These envoys were 
delegated to convey to the Roman treasurer the vote of honor conferred 
upon him by the βουλή and the δῆμος of Lete. In the discussion of 
the preceding inscription it was seen that a βουλευτής was a member 
of the βουλή. Here it appears that the βουλή or its members, the 
βουλευταί drew up the προβούλευμα and that they were chosen as 
envoys for the city. 


(3) 744 
A. Βαίβιος, βουλευτὴς δίς. 


The whole of this inscription, consisting of five lines, is extant. 
The first line is here transcribed. It was found at Olynthus in Macedonia. 
The date is not known. 

The man whose name appears in this inscription erected a monument 
to the memory of his wife. As already pointed out the important 
contribution which it makes is in showing that in Macedonia a man 
might twice be elected a βουλευτής, and, by inference from this fact, 
that it designates a member of the βουλή. 

It thus appears that, generically, the term has the same meaning 
in the inscriptions as in the New Testament, but that the specific 
meaning is different. In both cases it is an official designation denoting 
a member of a body having governmental functions. But whereas 
in the inscriptions this body is the βουλή of a Greek city, in the New 
Testament it is the highest legislative and judicial body of the Jewish 
people, commonly called the Sanhedrin. It may perhaps be regarded 
as most probable that the employment of βουλή in Josephus, and of 

244 


LEGAL TERMS IN MACEDONIAN INSCRIPTIONS AND THE N.T. 29 


βουλευτής in Mark 15:43 for the Jewish Council and one of its members 
respectively, is not the reflection of a common usage in Jewish Greek 
terminology, but a transfer to a Jewish body and one of its members of 
a Greek term which in strict Greek usage had a similar, though not 
identical significance, somewhat as if we today should speak of one of 
the πολιτάρχαι of Thessalonica as the mayor of the city. And Josephus 
may very well in this case be adapting his terminology to the common 
vocabulary of his readers. 


245 


Il. γερουσία 


The term γερουσια occurs twice in the Macedonian inscriptions 
(τάττον; 411 1ὴ. 

(1) I410 
᾿Αγαθῇ τύχῃ 
τὴν ἀξιολογωτά- 
τὴν ἀρχιέρειαν 
Meppiav Βελληΐξ 

ς νανμ. ᾿Αλεξάνδραν τὸ 
σεμνότατον συν- 
έδριον τῆς γερου- 
σίας τὴν μητέρα 

εὐτευχῶς. 

The whole of this inscription is extant and is here transcribed. It 
reads as follows: “With good luck, the most august συνέδριον erected 
this monument in honor of the most noteworthy high priestess Memmia 
Belleina Alexandra, the mother of the γερουσία, farewell.” 

In 1883 Mr. and Mrs. J. Theodore Bent discovered in Thasos a 
triumphal arch in front of which there stood two pedestals. On the 
southern base, on which a statue of more than life-size was placed, this 
inscription was found. As to its date Dimitsas says: “ἀνήκει εἰς τὸν 
Bos wc. ιν γ᾽ αἰῶνα po KL” (Max., Il, 965, πὸ 1410). ἘΣΣΊ ΕΠ. 
dates it within 212-17 A.D. (Jour. Hell. Studies, VIII, 1887, 424). 

There is nothing given here to indicate that the γερουσία was 
different, as respects its functions, from the βουλή of the other inscrip- 
tions. The earlier inscriptions found in Thasos designated the govern- 
mental body by the term βουλή, even when that council was an oligarchy 
similar to the yepovoia of Sparta. Apparently the γερουσία here 
referred to is the same body that at an earlier period was called βουλή, 
the two names being interchangeable at this time. 


(2) 1411 
2 Ἢ γερουσία 
The whole of this mortuary inscription is extant, containing twelve 
lines, in the second of which the term γερουσία occurs. It belongs to 
30 [246 


LEGAL TERMS IN MACEDONIAN INSCRIPTIONS AND THE N.T. 31 


the same time and place as the preceding inscription. The translation 
is as follows: “With good luck. The γερουσία erected this monument 
to Flavia Vibia Sabina the most noteworthy chief priestess and from 
her ancestors incomparable, mother of the γερουσία, the first and only 
one of those who from all time shared in equal honors with the members 
of the γερουσία.’ 

Here again the γερουσία is exercising the functions which were 
generally attributed to the βουλή, or to the βουλή and the δῆμος. 

In Sparta the γερουσία was a council of twenty-eight members, 
besides the two kings (Hdt. 6. 57; Plut. Lyc. 5). Membership in it 
was limited to a certain class, that is to persons possessing a good social 
and financial standing, and the age required for admission to it was at 
least sixty years (Plut. Lyc. 26). Candidates for admission to it must be 
καλοὶ κἀγαθοί (Arist. Pol. 2. 9, 22, 46, Newman’s ed.). Membership 
was for life. The body was not accountable to any superior authority, or 
to the people for its official acts (Arist. Pol. 2.9; Plut. Lyc. 26; Polyb. 6. 
45.2). Inthe middle of the fourth century B.c. Demosthenes, in writing 
concerning the γερουσία of Sparta, pointed out that certain qualifications 
were necessary for membership in it; membership in it was bestowed 
as a prize, or reward of merit and that within the γερουσία itself all 
the members shared equal privileges. Miiller compares the Council 
of the Areopagos to the γερουσία of Sparta—‘‘Daher die Sittenauf- 
sicht der alten Gerichte, wie des Areopagos in Athen, so der Gerusia 
zu Sparta” (Miiller, Dorier, II, xi, 215). He also adds: “Die 
Gerusia richtete alle peinlichen Klagen, wie auch die meisten, die 
den Lebenswandel der Biirger betrafen.” A list of members of the 
γερουσία is given by Le Bas in his Voyage en Gréce et en Asie Mineure, 
p. 173¢. 

The γερουσία had authority to pass sentence of death, and to it 
as a court of justice all cases of murder were brought. Aristotle in 
referring to the cases which come before the ephors for judgment says, 
οἱ δὲ γέροντες τὰς φονικάς (Arist. Pol. 3. 1. 10). There is evidence for 
the existence of a γερουσία at Ephesus, Crete, Elis, and Cnidus. 

Sometimes the terms βουλή and γερουσία occur in the same inscrip- 
tion in such a way that it is difficult to decide whether both refer to the 
same body, or whether they point to the existence of a βουλή and a 
γερουσία side by side. Owing to the occurrence of both words CIG, 
1241 Boeckh concludes (CIG, I, p. 610) that they denote different 
bodies, while Foucart regards the two as identical. In general, however, 
the terms βουλή and γερουσία are used with reference to different 


247 


32 HISTORICAL AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES 


cities, and denote political bodies differing as to their organization 
and possessing somewhat different functions. 

During the Greek period the governing body at Jerusalem was 
called a yepovota. In a letter written by Antiochus the Great to 
Ptolemy in 200 B.c. the following reference to the γερουσία occurs: 
καὶ μετὰ τῆς γερουσίας ἀπαντησάντων (Jos., Ant., XII, iii, 3)—‘‘Since the 
Jews, on our first entrance into their country, showed their friend- 
ship toward us, and when we came to their city received us in a splendid 
manner and came to meet us with their γερουσία. Antiochus V, 
in a letter to the Jews in 164 B.c., sends greetings to the γερουσία τῶν 
Ιουδαίων (II Macc. 11:27): ‘“‘King Antiochus to the γερουσία of the 
Jews and to the other Jews, greeting.”’ 

The following quotations will illustrate the position of prominence 
held by the γερουσία and in part the functions which it exercised: 
II Macc. 1:10: καὶ οἱ ἐν τῇ ᾿Ιουδαίᾳ καὶ ἡ γερουσία καὶ ᾿Ιούδας ᾿Αριστοβούλῳ 
—“And they who are in Judea, and the γερουσία and Judas, to 
Aristobulus.”’ 

II Macc. 4:44: ot πεμφθέντες τρεῖς ἄνδρες ὑπὸ τῆς yepovolas—‘ the 
three men who were sent by the γερουσία." 

I Macc. 12:6: Ἰωναθὰν ἀρχιερεὺς τοῦ ἔθνους καὶ ἡ γερουσώ---' Jona- 
than the high priest of the nation, and the γερουσία, and the priests 
and the rest of the people of the Jews, unto their brethren the 
Spartans, greeting.” 

Judith 4:8: καὶ ἡ γερουσία παντὸς δήμου ᾿Ισραήλ--- And the chil- 
dren of Israel did as Joakim the high priest had commanded them and the 
γερουσία of all the people of Israel, who dwelt at Jerusalem.” 

Judith 11:14: τὴν ἄφεσιν παρὰ τῆς yepovoias— And they have sent 
some to Jerusalem, because they also that dwell there have done this 
thing, to bring to them the discharge from the γερουσία. 

Judith 15:8: καὶ ἡ γερουσία τῶν υἱῶν "IopayA— And Joakim the high 
priest, and the γερουσία of the children of Israel who dwelt at Jerusalem 
came to behold the good things which the Lord had showed to Israel.” 

As early as Antiochus the Great the council at Jerusalem was known 
as the γερουσία, and took an active part in all political, and religious 
matters of public interest. From 200 B.c., and possibly earlier, Greek 
writers were accustomed to speak of this Jewish Council as the γερουσία. 
The earliest definite reference to it is that of Antiochus in 200 B.c. It 
is quite probable that this body at Jerusalem owed its organization to 
the spread of Greek political ideas, and that the name γερουσία was 
first applied to it by the Greeks, but on both of these points there is a 


248 


LEGAL TERMS IN MACEDONIAN INSCRIPTIONS AND THE N.T. 99 


lack of trustworthy evidence. At all events, the name γερουσία was 
not peculiar to the Jewish people. The Spartans and other Doric 
states had from very early times been familiar with a γερουσία. 

In the Septuagint the word γερουσία has been used twenty-five 
times as a translation for "3p7, and once for "JD, but this does not 
imply that there was any such organization of the elders in the Old 
Testament period as we find in the second century B.c. 

In 200 B.c. when Antiochus the Great addressed a letter to the 
γερουσία at Jerusalem the terms βουλή and γερουσία were both familiar 
to Greek writers. The βουλή of Athens and the γερουσία of Sparta 
were two well-known political bodies, each having marked characteristics 
of itsown. The term of office in the βουλή of Athens was one year, and 
its members were subject to examination for their official conduct. 
In the γερουσία of Sparta membership was for life, and was independent 
of any other authority. 

The βουλή of Athens was composed of five hundred members 
and a man was eligible for membership in it at thirty years of age 
(Xen. Mem. 1. 2.35). As to the γερουσία of Sparta, a man must be at 
least sixty years old before he was admitted to it, and the number of 
its members was limited to twenty-eight. In other cities the number 
varied, but it was always small. It appears then that the βουλή was 
the more democratic organization, and the γερουσία the more aristocratic 
and exclusive. 

That the governmental body at Jerusalem was, at this early date, 
called a γερουσία seems to indicate that it was more closely related, 
in its organization and functions, to the Doric γερουσία than to the 
βουλή of Athens. The historical development of the Council at 
Jerusalem tends to confirm this view. 

About the middle of the first century B.c. a change seems to have 
occurred in the name of this council. In 57-55 B.c. Gabinius divided 
the whole of the Jewish ἔθνος into five σύνοδοι (B. J., I, vili, 5), one 
of which was at Jerusalem. What Gabinius really did at this time is 
more clearly stated in Ant., XIV, v, 4, where it is said that he divided 
τὸ ἔθνος into equal parts or divisions and appointed five συνέδρια, one 
of which was to be in Jerusalem. The term συνέδριον is here applied 
by Josephus to the council at Jerusalem, as well as to the other four. 
This is the language in which Josephus describes what Gabinius did, 
but it is not thereby necessarily the terminology of Gabinius himself. 
We cannot therefore affirm that the council at Jerusalem was designated 
as a συνέδριον by Gabinius. 

249 


94 HISTORICAL AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES 


In 47 B.c. Hyrcanus II was reappointed ἐθνάρχης of the Jews at 
Jerusalem. In that year he summoned Herod from Galilee to appear 
before the συνέδριον at Jerusalem to answer an accusation of murder 
which had been made against him (Jos., Amt., XIV, ix, 3-5). Here, 
for the first time, so far as can be learned, the term συνέδριον is unmis- 
takably used to designate the council at Jerusalem, formerly known 
as the γερουσία, for it is uncertain whether Gabinius himself used the 
term at the earlier date. 

Elsewhere συνέδριον is frequently used to denote courts of justice. 
Hesychius defines συνέδριον by δικαστήριον. In Prov. 22:10, συνέδριον is 
used to translate 1. In the Mishna, Sanhedrin I. 5, ὩΣ matt 
=‘“courts for the tribes.” The employment of συνέδριον to denote 
this council at Jerusalem may tend to show that there was a growing 
emphasis placed upon the judicial functions of the Council. In this 
connection it is important to observe that Le Bas et Waddington (Zmscr. 
III, n. 1221) mention the βουλευταί and the συνεδροί as two distinct 
classes of officers. While, from the beginning of the first century 
B.C. συνέδριον seems to be the usual name for the Council at Jerusalem, 
yet it is not the only name by which it was designated. It was also 
called the γερουσία and the βουλή. 

The term γερουσία occurs only once in the New Testament (Acts 
5:21), and there has been much difference of opinion as to its meaning 
in that passage. The difficulty there arises from the fact that both 
συνέδριον and γερουσία are used, connected by καί. Either one of 
these words, if occurring by itself, would be readily understood as 
referring to the Sanhedrin. As it is, however, commentators are unable 
to agree as to its meaning here. Some of the passages already quoted 
under γερουσία may afford some light on its meaning in Acts, which 
reads: τὸ συνέδριον καὶ πᾶσαν τὴν γερουσίαν τῶν υἱῶν ᾿Ισραήλ. A 
phrase similar to the latter half of this occurs in Judith 15: 8, ἡ γερουσία 
τῶν υἱῶν Ἰσραήλ where it is evidently used as a designation for the 
Sanhedrin. A somewhat similar phrase, referring to the Sanhedrin 
is found in II Macc. 11:27, τῇ γερουσίᾳ τῶν ᾿Ιουδαίων. These phrases 
show that so far as the form of expression in Acts is concerned, γερουσίαν 
τῶν υἱῶν Ἰσραήλ may denote the Sanhedrin. Meyer, Stier, Alford 
and others regard yepovoia, in Acts, as a more general term than 
συνέδριον, and include under it elders who were not members of the 
Sanhedrin. Lumby, in the ‘Cambridge Bible”’ series, takes συνέδριον 
as referring to another and smaller council than the Sanhedrin. Wendt 
takes both words as denoting the same council, with the καί as an 


250 


LEGAL TERMS IN MACEDONIAN INSCRIPTIONS AND THE N.T. 39 


explicative. Schiirer thinks that both words certainly refer to the same 
body, and that either καί is to be taken as an explicative, or that the 
author of the Acts was mistaken in supposing that συνέδριον was a 
less comprehensive term than yepovota. He inclines to accept the 
latter view. 

Inasmuch as it has been shown that συνέδριον was, at this time, 
the name commonly used to designate the Sanhedrin, and that γερουσία, 
in almost the same phraseology as that used in the New Testament, 
was used to denote the Sanhedrin, there seems to be a high degree of 
probability in favor of the view that both terms denote the Sanhedrin 
in Acts. In addition to the above statement regarding the γερουσία 
it is seen in the inscriptions (1410:7; 1411:2) that it was used to denote 
the governmental body of a city as late as the beginning of the third 
century A.D. 

As respects the term συνέδριον it is found only once in the inscrip- 
tions (1410:6). For place and date and translation of this inscription 
see II. (1). It may there have one of two possible meanings. Either 
it was used to denote assembly in the general sense of that term, or 
it was used in the technical sense denoting the governmental body of 
the city. The former alternative, taking it in the more general sense, 
is apparently the correct interpretation. 

In the first mention which we have of συνέδριον as a name for the 
Council at Jerusalem it is with reference to its exercising the functions 
of a court of justice, and in later times it is used with increasing fre- 
quency to designate a court of justice. In the New Testament it 
occurs twenty-two times, and, in all but three instances, it is used of 
the Council at Jerusalem in its exercise of judicial functions. Twice 
it is used of the local courts (Matt. 10:17; Mark 13:9), and once it 
occurs with the meaning of a session or a meeting of the Sanhedrin 
(John 11:47). 

Notwithstanding this almost uniform usage of the New Testament 
it is seen that Josephus uses all three terms, βουλή, γερουσία, and 
συνέδριον to denote the Sanhedrin. Under the term βουλή he refers 
to it in (1) Δ. J., Il, xv. 6: καὶ μεταπεμψάμενος τούς τε ἀρχιερεῖς 
καὶ τὴν βουλήν. Here, Florus, the Roman procurator at Jerusalem, 
sent for the priests and the βουλή to arrange terms of peace. (2) B. J., 
Il, xvi. 2: ἔνθα καὶ “Iovdatwy of τε ἀρχιερεῖς ἅμα τοῖς δυνατοῖς καὶ ἡ 
βουλὴ παρῆν δεξιουμένη τὸν βασιλέα. On this occasion the chief priests, 
together with the men of power, and the βουλή came to meet 
King Agrippa and Neopolitanus, a Roman envoy, to present to them 

251 


36 HISTORICAL AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES - 


their grievances against Florus. (3) In B. J., II, xiv. 1, the local courts 
are referred to under the term βουλή. In B. J., II, xvii. 1, the term 
βουλευταί is used with reference to the Sanhedrin. (4) In B. J., V, 
xiii, 1, the γραμματεύς of the βουλή was put to death by Simon during 
the war with Rome. This has an additional interest for us in the fact 
that it shows the existence of the office of γραμματεύς of the βουλή in 


Jerusalem. 
The term γερουσία occurs, at least, three times in Josephus: Avt., 
IV, viii. 16: at ἀρχαὶ τῶν πόλεων... . , Kal ἡ γερουσία... οἱ 


ἱερεῖς καὶ of Λευῖται καὶ ἡ γερουσία τῆς πόλεως ἐκείνης. This passage 
states that if a murder had been committed, and the murderer 
could not be found, that the ἀρχαί and the γερουσία of the nearest 
adjoining cities or towns were required to measure the distance, from 
where the murdered man was found, to these cities, and the one nearest 
to where the murdered man lay was then required to perform the follow- 
ing rite: The ἱερεῖς, the Λευῖται and the γερουσία were to wash their 
hands over the head of a slain heifer, and publicly proclaim them- 
selves innocent of the blood of the dead man. From this it appears 
that each city had a γερουσία, and that the γερουσία in these cities 
had to deal with judicial matters, and with religious rites. In this 
instance the γερουσία is represented as co-operating with other officers 
in trying to determine who was responsible for the murder, but it is 
not, strictly speaking, acting in a judicial capacity. In Ané. XII, 
iii, 3, Antiochus is calling attention to the good-will shown to him by 
the Jews, who with their γερουσία came out to meet him. The para- 
graph in Ant., XIII, v. 8 is of special interest to us in this discussion 
inasmuch as the βουλή of Rome, the γερουσία of Jerusalem, and the 
γερουσία of Sparta are all mentioned. Two envoys (πρεσβευταί), 
members of the γερουσία of Jerusalem, were sent to Rome in 144 B.C. 
to renew a treaty made under Onias I, and they were to go on a similar 
errand to Sparta. At Rome these envoys were received by the βουλή, 
and at Sparta by the yepovoia. All three of these bodies, the βουλή 
of Rome, the γερουσία of Sparta and the γερουσία of Jerusalem are 
represented as acting in a political capacity, each having authority 
to arrange treaties for their respective cities. The sending of this 
embassy took place about a century before there is any explicit mention 
of a συνέδριον at Jerusalem, or more accurately, before the Council 
at Jerusalem is called by that name. At that time yepovoia was the 
common name for the Council at Jerusalem, and Josephus in describing 
the event may be using the terms which were used in 144 B.C. 


252 


LEGAL TERMS IN MACEDONIAN INSCRIPTIONS AND THE N.T. 37 


Josephus also refers to the Sanhedrin under the term συνέδριον: 
Ant., XIV, ix. 3-5, εἰ μὴ πρότερον κατακριθείη τοῦτο παθεῖν ὑπὸ τοῦ 
συνεδρίου. The authority to pass the sentence of death is here ascribed 
to the συνέδριον of Jerusalem. In the two paragraphs following this 
one the word συνέδριον occurs eight times denoting the Sanhedrin of 
Jerusalem, and once the plural is used with reference to the members 
of the Sanhedrin. In Ant., XV, vi, 2, it is implied that the συνέδριον 
at Jerusalem had authority to pass sentence of death upon a criminal. 
In Ant., XX, ix, i, the word συνέδριον occurs twice, with reference to 
its passing sentence of death upon James the Just. But it appears 
that this sentence could not be executed without the consent of the 
Roman procurator, Albinus, and it happened on this occasion that 
Albinus revoked the sentence of death passed by the συνέδριον of 
Jerusalem. 

In Josephus, as well as in the New Testament, the term συνέδριον 
denotes the Sanhedrin acting in a judicial capacity, and never as a 
legislative or civic body. This coincidence is all the more remarkable 
inasmuch as Josephus uses other terms, βουλή and γερουσία to denote 
the Sanhedrin exercising political or governmental functions. This 
investigation tends to show that the term συνέδριον as it was employed 
in the New Testament period to designate the council at Jerusalem, 
was used with reference to it as a judicial body, and that when this 
council was referred to as exercising civic or governmental functions 
it was commonly called the βουλή or the γερουσία. It seems to be 
highly probable that from about the middle of the first century B.c. 
the name συνέδριον became the common designation for the council 
at Jerusalem, but the earlier name, γερουσία, still survived side by 
side with the new, with perhaps a more distinct reference to its legislative 
functions. 


253 


II. δῆμος 


The word δῆμος is found in sixteen of the Macedonian inscriptions, 
and in these it occurs thirty-seven times, or including five restorations 
by the editor, forty-two times. The following table gives a list of the 
inscriptions containing δῆμος, the name of the city to which each 
belongs, and their respective dates. In some instances the dates are 
given only approximately, as the exact date cannot always be ascer- 
tained. Further investigation may also change some of the dates 
which are here accepted. 


eae N ‘City of Date of Inscription 
ΠΟΙΈΕΙΝ Beroea 
» “cc 

On ΡΠ ΠΕΣ Thessalonica] 143 A.D. 

BRU a αἷς Delos 220-215 B.C. 

ὌΠΑ eres τς ἐγ ον 

ΟΣ a lye Aivati ΤῊ B.C. 

SAO: Lets. Amphipolis | 358-357 B.C. 

O27 ain Gut τ Probably the early part of the Roman era 
TOSOMAte Elsi: Ocra Uncertain, probably before the Roman period 
1085 LW. Eee ae {{ [ΧῚ “ec { { ae “cc 
PEZOV oe Thasos Before the time of Alexander the Great 
DICH Yates BU Se τ Between 42 B.c. and 27 B.C. 

250: Ὁ ee First century A.D. 
TiZAO eye weit ee τ ἘΝ 
POO εν ΤῊΣ i. 411 B.C. 


It thus appears that five of the cities of Macedonia had a δῆμος, 
or seven if we, with Dimitsas, include Delos and Thasos. As to the 
period of time covered by these inscriptions they extend from the last 
part of the fifth century B.c. to the first half of the second century 
A.D., and perhaps later. 

In the treatment of the word βουλή, the relation of the βουλή to the 
δῆμος was discussed. It there appeared that the βουλή had certain 
functions pertaining to it as a distinct body, but that more often the 
βουλή and the δῆμος were represented as acting together in the transac- 
tion of public matters. On other occasions official action is attributed 
to the δῆμος alone. The functions of the δῆμος in so far as they appear 
in these inscriptions are as follows: 

38 [254 


LEGAL TERMS IN MACEDONIAN INSCRIPTIONS AND THE N.T. 39 


1. The δῆμος was the highest political authority in city or state. 
In 255:10-14 the action of the βουλή on this occasion seems to have 
had the force of a motion or a proposition, according to modern ter- 
minology. It was introduced at a meeting of the δῆμος in the form of 
a resolution, and carried with it the recommendation of the βουλή, but 
it did not become an authoritative decree until the δῆμος had voted 
upon it. 

2. The δῆμος had authority to pass decrees honoring benefactors 
of the city (671:12~-19). 

3. At Thessalonica the δῆμος chose the place where the statue 
was to be erected (671: 38-41). 

4. The δῆμος at Thasos (in 411 B.c.) had authority to grant exemp- 
tion from taxation (1369:1-2), and to punish by exile (1369:5). These 
decrees of the δῆμος were repealed by the oligarchy in 411 B.c., but the 
supremacy of this revolutionary body was of short duration. Reference 
is here made to the δῆμος which was in Thasos before the oligarchy 
was established, and not to the δῆμος appointed by the oligarchical 
βουλή. 

5. The δῆμος at Amphipolis and Ocra erected monuments in honor 
of their benefactors, at their own expense (927:4; 1080:2; 1085:1). 

6. The δῆμος of Thasos exercised both judicial and legislative 
functions (1369). 

The only suggestion as to how the δῆμος was appointed is to be 
found in Thasos (1369 ), where it appears that the βουλή was to make out 
a list of those who should be permitted to take the oath as members 
of the δῆμος. Inasmuch as this took place during the revolution of 
the oligarchy it cannot be assumed that this was the regular order of 
procedure. It is seen, however, that the δῆμος is always associated 
with some city of which it is the highest governing body, and with 
respect to the βουλή they sustained the same relation to each other 
in matters of government as the βουλή and the δῆμος of Athens did 
to each other. In Athens it isa well-known fact that the δῆμος included 
practically all the citizens of the place. Every adult Athenian was 
entitled to attend, and formed part of the body, as in a New England 
town meeting (cf. Gilbert, Greek Const. Ant., pp. 285-90). The δῆμος 
of the Macedonian cities was in all probability made up in this way. 
The citizens thus legislated for themselves, and were not a representative 
body. 

From the usage of the term δῆμος in the inscriptions certain facts 
are obtained which have a bearing upon the meaning and usage of 


255 


40 HISTORICAL AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES 


this term in the New Testament. It occurs four times in the New 
Testament (Acts 12:22; 17:5; 19:30, 33). In Acts 12:22 it pertains 
to the city of Caesarea in Palestine; in 17:5 to Thessalonica in Mace- 
donia; and in 19:30, 33 to Ephesus in Asia Minor. The Macedonian 
inscriptions show that the cities of Macedonia were generally governed 
by a body called 6 δῆμος. Reference is made in No. 365 to the δῆμος 
of Thessalonica. Ephesus not being a Macedonian city is not mentioned 
here, but there are other inscriptions which make mention of a βουλή 
and a δῆμος in Ephesus. Not only do the inscriptions show that a 
political body called the δῆμος existed in Thessalonica and Ephesus, 
but they also afford some light as to some of the officers mentioned in 
the New Testament. 

The politarchs are associated with the high priest in such a way as to 
suggest that they were colleagues, but that the high priest was in some 
manner their superior officer. The statement is made (365) that certain 
things were done for the βουλή and the δῆμος by the politarchs wept τὸν 
dpxtepéa. Both the politarchs and the high priest were subordinate, 
or subject to the authority of the δῆμος. They were both officers of 
the city. 

The accusation against Paul and Silas in Thessalonica was political. 
They had violated certain civic laws and so were answerable to the city 
for their conduct. The intention seems to have been to bring them to 
the δῆμος for judgment, but failing to find Paul and Silas, they arrested 
Jason, together with some of the brethren, for having given shelter to 
Paul and Silas. Jason was brought to the politarchs for trial. Evi- 
dently it was to the politarchs as public officers under the δῆμος that 
Jason was summoned. They were judicial officers of the δῆμος, that 
is of the δῆμος as a political body. There seems to be a strong proba- 
bility that the term δῆμος in Acts 17:5 hasits technical meaning denoting 
a governmental body. 

In favor of the technical meaning in Acts 19:30, 33 it is seen from 
the inscriptions: (1) that one of the regular places of meeting for the 
δῆμος was the theater (with Acts 19:29 cf. CIA, II, 378, 381, 392, 
403, 408, 435, 439, 454, 468, 471); (2) that all matters of interest to 
the city were to be disposed of, either at a regular session of the δῆμος 
or at a meeting specially called, in case of emergency (cf. Gilbert, 
Greek Const. Ant., pp. 285-87); therefore the purpose for which the 
δῆμος is assembled on any occasion was legislative or judicial; (3) the 
usual name for an assembly of the δῆμος was ἐκκλησία (τοῦ, 255, 671). 
The meeting of the δῆμος in Ephesus is designated as an ἐκκλησία, 

256 


LEGAL TERMS IN MACEDONIAN INSCRIPTIONS AND THE N.T. 41 


but by implication an unlawful ἐκκλησία (Acts 19:32, 39, 41). In this 
case we must understand that it was an irregular meeting of the δῆμος, 
not convened in any regular order. 

Most of the reasons given for interpreting δῆμος in a technical sense 
in Acts, chaps. 17 and 19 would apply to its usage in Acts 12:22. The 
data furnished by the inscriptions tend to confirm the interpretation 
of δῆμος in Acts as a technical term denoting a political body. 


257 


IV. διαθήκη" 


(1) 128 
Ἡρακλίδης ᾿Ασκληπιά- 
δου ἱερεὺς τῆς θεοῦ 
κατὰ δι[α [θή[κη]ν ἐκ- 


έλευσεν. 


The whole of this inscription is extant and is here transcribed. It 
was found in Janitza (Πέλλη). The date is not known, but there is 
nothing in the inscription itself to suggest a late date. 

The priest of the goddess provided κατὰ διαθήκην for something 
to be done. In many of the Macedonian monumental inscriptions 
the object of the verb is omitted when that object is the tomb or monu- 
ment on which the inscription is written. It is more frequently omitted 
than mentioned in such cases. In the above inscription the object 
of the verb ii stated would be some word or words concerning the erection 
of the monument. There is no express mention here of the disposition 
of property, though the natural inference is that when the testator 
commanded that certain things should be done that he provided the 
money necessary for doing it. 


(2) 258 

K(at) Φιλωνος τοῦ Κόνωνος ποιησαμένου λόγους wep(it) M. Overiov Pirw- 

a , Ν ΄ id Ν ΄ Ν ε A ΄ 

vos τοῦ θείου κ(αὶ) προσανγείλαντος ὅτι κ(αὶ) πρῴ(ην) τὴν ἑαυτοῦ πατρ(ίδα) 
ἐτείμησε μεγάλως κ(αὶ) τελευτῶν οὐδὲ τῆς κατὰ τὴν βουλὴν τε(ἡ) μῆς ἠμέλη- 
σεν, ἀλλ᾽ ἀφῆκεν αὐτῇ κατὰ διαθήκην A’: ad: ἐφ᾽ ᾧ ἐκ τῶν κατ᾽ ἐνιαυτὸν 
ΕἸ > lal , ’ ε ’ ΝΜ > , -" ε / > 
ἐξ αὐτῶν γεινομένων τόκων ἡμέραν ἄγουσα Οὐεττίου Βωλανοῦ ἑορτάσιμον ev- 
ὠχῆται τῇ πρὸ δεκατεσσάρων καλανδῶν Νοεμβρίων, ἔδοξεν τῇ βουλῇ τὴν τοῦ 
» ὃ Ν , Ν ’ > δέξ θ > , ~ J 9 > ~ ‘ Ν 
ἀνδρὸς σεμνότητα κ(αὶ) βούλησιν ἀποδέξασθαι ἐπί τε ταῖς ὑπ᾽ αὐτοῦ κατὰ τὴν 
διαθήκην γεγραμμέναις αἱρέσεσιν τὸ τἀργύριον λαβεῖν καὶ κατ᾽ ἐνιαυτὸν ἄγειν 
τὴν τοῦ Οὐεττίου Βωλανοῦ ἑορτάσιμον ἐκ τῶν τόκων ἡμέραν καὶ μήτε τοῦ 
προγεγραμμένου κεφαλαίου ἀπαναλίσκειν τι εἰς ἑτέραν χρείαν μήτε τοῦ κατ᾽ 
ἐνιαυτὸν γινομένου τόκου, ἀλλ᾽ ὡς 6 δοὺς Φιλων ἠθέλησεν, τὸ τἀργύριον 
ἠριθμήσατο καὶ παρέλαβεν ὃ ἐπιμελητὴς τῶν τῆς βουλῆς δηναρίων Λούκιος 
Λουκρήτιος ἸΠούδης. 

1 For a thorough discussion of the term διαθήκη see F. O. Norton, Lexicographical 
and Historical Study of διαθήκη. 

42 [258 


LEGAL TERMS IN MACEDONIAN INSCRIPTIONS AND THE N.T. 43 


The whole of this inscription is extant, and from 1. 7 to the end is 
here transcribed. For the place and date of this inscription see I. (6), 
where a translation is also given of ll. 9-26. 

A longer portion of this inscription is here transcribed because it is 
the best example of a διαθήκη found in the Macedonian inscriptions, 
and its importance is enhanced by the fact that it comes so near to 
the time when the books of the New Testament were written. From 
it we learn that a certain man when dying left to the βουλή, κατὰ διαθήκην, 
1,500 denarii, on the condition that from the accruing interest an 
annual festival was to be conducted at a stated time. The βουλή 
voted to accept the money on the conditions named in the διαθήκη, 
and to use it only as directed by the testator. Express mention is 
made (]. το) of the death of the testator, which is rather unusual, 
although it is always assumed that the διαθήκη becomes effective only 
on the death of the testator. It is seen that at this time a man could 
dispose of a part, at least, of his property to some person or persons 
apart from his heir. Property might be transmitted by means of a 
διαθήκη. This bequest to the βουλή was conditional, and could be 
used by the βουλή only by carrying out the conditions named in the 
διαθήκη. A similar transaction, so far as the city is concerned, takes 
place today when a city accepts a gift from Andrew Carnegie agreeing 
to fulfil the conditions attaching to the gift. The transaction between 
the βουλή and the testator was not mutual. The testator took the 
initiative, named the recipient or beneficiary, and the conditions attach- 
ing to it, and his terms were authoritative. 


(3) 281 
τὰ τέ- 
κνα Τι(βέριος) Κλαύδιος Πρόκλος, Μάξιμ- 
ος Κλαύδιος καὶ Αἰλία 
6 Πρόκλα ἡ σύμβιος κατὰ διαθή- 


kas, 


Only a part of this inscription is extant, and only that portion of 
it is transcribed which contains the term διαθήκη. It was found ina 
church in Mpeloboditsa which lies between Prilapos and Stobos. The 
date is not known, but the Latin names indicate that it belongs to the 
Roman period. 

- It is said in the inscription that, “‘ Tiberius Claudius Phortius, having 
done duty as a soldier in a praetorium, his children, Tiberius Claudius 
259 


44 HISTORICAL AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES 


Proclus, Maximus Claudius and Ailia Procla his wife erected [this 
monument,] κατὰ diaPyjKas.”’ 

This is a monumental rather than a testamentary inscription. 
The purpose of the inscription is to record the fact that the children 
of the deceased had erected a monument to the memory of their father 
who had been a soldier, but they did this in accordance with the com- 
mands of their father as expressed in his διαθήκη. The matter of 
erecting a monument to the deceased does not seem, in this case, to 
have been left to the discretion of his heirs, but was made obligatory 
upon them, by the testator in his διαθήκη. The mention of the διαθήκη 
is then incidental to the main purpose of this inscription, and is not 
a statement regarding the διαθήκη as such. 

The two sons and a son’s wife are recorded as having erected the 
monument. They were in all probability his heirs, although nothing 
is said about the disposition of property. That would be aside from 
the purpose of the inscription. The plural number of διαθήκη, which 
occurs in |. 6, does not seem to differ in its meaning from the singular. 
The two forms seem to be used interchangeably. That there was at 
one time a difference between the singular number of διαθήκη and 
the plural number of it is altogether probable, but that difference is 
not apparent in any of these inscriptions. 


(4) 348 
Ἰούλιος (καὶ) Θηίγονος 
Ποπλίῳ Φρον- 
τίν- τῷ πατρώ- 
w κατὰ τὸν O[eiov] ὁρ- 
5 κισμὸν τῆς διαθή- 
κης τὸν βωμὸν 
ἔκτισαν καὶ τὰ θεῖ- 


α αὐτῷ ἐποίησαν. 


The whole of this inscription is extant, and is transcribed. It was 
found in the house of Chrestos Sabba in Achrida, which lies to the north 
of the earlier town of Lychnidus, which was the chief town of the 
Dasaretae in Illyricum. The Roman names occurring in it indicate 
that it belongs to the Roman period. It reads as follows: ‘Julius and 
Theigonus for Poplius Frontinus their father built the altar and 
performed the sacred rites according to the divine adjuration of the 
διαθήκη." 

260 


LEGAL TERMS IN MACEDONIAN INSCRIPTIONS AND THE N.T. 45 


The purpose of the inscription seems to be to record the fact that the 
sons have fulfilled their obligation to their deceased father, in accordance 
with the solemn injunction imposed upon them in the διαθήκη. These 
commands enjoined by the testator upon his heirs seem to have 
authority, and are in all probability conditions which they must fulfil 
before they can enter upon the inheritance, as in the case of the property 
left to the βουλή of Tzepikobon. They have the force of an authori- 
tative command, and were not to be lightly disregarded by the son or 
heir. This inscription tends to show that the sons were expected and 
required to maintain the religious duties of the deceased parent, and 
that a man might make provision in his διαθήκη for the perpetuation 
of the obligations resting upon his family. 


(5) 369 
6 P ἐκ διαθηκῶν “Epevvi[ ov 


Only a part of this inscription is extant, in a very fragmentary 
condition. For a description of it, and for its place and date see under 
I. (7) where an inscription referring to the same time and event is 
described, or, more accurately perhaps, they are both copies of the same 
original. See Jour. Hell. Studies, VIII, 1887, 362. 

Although the details of this transaction cannot be obtained, yet 
it is reasonably certain that a bequest was made in favor of the city of 
Thessalonica, for the establishing of certain games. The preposition 
ἐκ occurs here before διαθηκῶν, instead of the more usual construction 
of κατά with the accusative, but apparently with little difference in 
meaning. 

The word διαθήκη occurs in five of these inscriptions, in one of 
which it is found twice. These inscriptions in which διαθήκη occurs 
either relate to the duties of children to their deceased parents, or have 
reference to bequests made to some city, and so have a public interest. 
They were not intended to set forth the διαθήκη itself, or even to describe 
it as such. They afford, however, considerable indirect evidence as 
to the character of the διαθήκη. 

There is only one explicit reference to the disposition of property 
(258), and in that case mention of the bequest is made subordinate to 
the purpose for which it was given. The main feature of the διαθήκη, 
as here presented, is that it gives to the children or legatees certain 
specific and binding commands which they are required to fulfil. It 
has been seen that the children were solemnly adjured in the διαθήκη 

261 


40 HISTORICAL AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES 


to perform the sacred rites to their deceased father. I am uncertain 
whether this expression implies that these rites were observed by the 
sons as worship to their father, or whether it means that they per- 
formed the rites for their father, in his interest. In two instances 
it is the city which is placed under obligation to carry out the wishes 
of the testator. There seems to be a strong probability that these 
injunctions had in every case a religious significance, and had to do 
with the perpetuation of the family life. The most noticeable feature 
of the διαθήκη as it appears in the Macedonian inscriptions is that it 
always contains certain injunctions or commands which are to be exe- 
cuted after the decease of the person who gave them, and that these 
requirements are imposed without consulting the persons who are to 
execute them. 

The discussion of the difficult question as to what sense or senses 
the word bears in the New Testament lies outside the scope of this 
paper. It must suffice to remark concerning the διαθήκη of these 
inscriptions: 

1. That it is testamentary rather than contractual. It is not a 
mutual compact to which both parties give assent, mutually contracting 
to do certain things, but the act of one person giving charges to another, 
or bestowing property on another, or both of these. The initiative 
is always taken by the one person. 

2. The thing enjoined in the διαθήκη is apparently always to be 
executed after the decease of the testator. His death is seldom explicitly 
mentioned, but is always assumed as the terminus a quo of the enjoined 
act. 

3. When property is bequeathed it may be accompanied by a charge 
to be fulfilled, and in such a way that the commission must be accepted 
in order to obtain the property (258). It is not clear that these injunc- 
tions always have a relation to the obtaining of a bequest. The injunc- 
tions laid upon children of the testator seem to be imperative, but 
perhaps in all these cases some property is left to the sons. 

4. The usage of the term διαθήκη in the inscriptions is similar to 
its usage in the Old and the New Testaments in that the initiative is 
always taken by one person. In the scriptures it is God who takes 
the initiative, and in the inscriptions it is the testator. In both there 
is some disposition made. It is also similar in that, in both, certain 
duties are enjoined upon the children or heirs. The one making the 
διαθήκη always assumes the right to command, and to withhold his 
bequest if the conditions attached to it are not fulfilled. 


262 


V. δόγμα 
(1) I 


6 κατὰ TO δόγμα τῆς βουλῆς 


For place and date, and translation of the inscription from which 
this phrase is transcribed see I. (1). According to this inscription an 
enrolment of the names of those who had become ἔφηβοι during a 
certain year was made by a δόγμα of the βουλή. The term δόγμα is 
here used in a technical sense, and denotes an official decree. 


(2) 217 
-- μηδὲ δόγ- 
μα τινὶ διδόνι πολιτείας ἢ χρήσε- 


ὡς τῶν δημοσίων, 


"Eay δὲ τῇ. : 
40 νον ee) πολειτάρχῃ καὶ δόγμα 
δημόσια. 
45 aa) Bene nae Pith τοῦτο τὸ δόγμα €- 
δοξε τῷ διέποντι 
τὴν ἐπαρ- 
χίαν ᾿Ιουνίῳ Ῥουφίνῳ διά 


All of this inscription is extant except the last four lines, of which 
only a word or two remain, but the extant portion is badly mutilated. 
Only the immediate contexts in which the word δόγμα occurs are tran- 
scribed. It was found in Idranitzi, and belongs to Orestis, which lies 
about one hundred miles to the west of Thessalonica. Sakellarios 
who first published it assigns it to the reign of Hadrian (117-138 A.D.). 

It is a decree passed by the πολῖται and the πολιτάρχης regarding 
the right of possession to certain lands, “concerning which those who 
hold them in possession formerly made a compact giving them up and 
handing them over to the state; but now the more powerful men of 
the eparchy are driving out by violence the poor, which is not lawful 
for them” (ll. 9-18). The decree provides that the land shall remain 
in the possession of the Orestae to whom it formerly belonged, and that 
263] 47 


48 HISTORICAL AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES 


“the politarch holding office for the year shall have charge of these 
things, to cast out and to hinder those using violence”’ (ll. 34-39). 
Beginning at the middle of |. 45 it reads: “this δόγμα was decreed by 
Junius Rufinus who is filling the office of eparch.”’ 

This δόγμα is an authoritative protest on the part of the people 
against certain acts of injustice which deprived them of their lands. 
It discloses the fact that the citizens had a right to legislate for them- 
selves; the government was not in the hands of an aristocracy. Ll. 39- 
44 seem to provide against a decree which shall annul or in any way set 
aside the decree passed by the politarch and the citizens. 


(3) 258 
3 δόγμ(α)τος ἀν(α) γραφῇ τῇ ιά τοῦ Δαισίου μηνός 


The whole of this inscription is extant, and the phrase containing 
the word δόγμα is transcribed. For place and date of this inscription, 
and a translation of a portion of it see under I. (6). 

The line transcribed above relates that the δόγμα was inscribed on 
the eleventh of the month Daisios in the year 243. By this δόγμα of 
the βουλή a bequest to the city was accepted. The term δόγμα is 
here employed in its ordinary technical meaning, denoting an official 
decree. 


(4) 398 
4 οὐκ ἔφυγον δὲ δόγμα τὸ 


τοῖσι μίτοις 


The whole of this inscription is extant, but only the clause contain- 
ing the term δόγμα is transcribed. It was found in the modern town of 
Καλλὶ-Κουλέ, but where and when it was first written does not seem 
to be known. It reads thus: “My parents called me Droson, always 
rejoicing with gentle heart, but I knew a short light of life, and escaped 
not the decree of the fates, and I passed seventeen years of life, but now 
I lie in Hades sharing neither good nor evil.” 

Generically the term δόγμα seems to have the same usage here as 
in the other inscriptions, but whereas in those it denotes the authorita- 
tive decree of a governmental body, it here denotes a decree of the fates, 
which is absolute and binding. 

The term δόγμα is found in four of the Macedonian inscriptions, 
and occurs six times in all. Twice it is used of a decree of the βουλή 
(1, 258); once of a decree by the πολῖται and the πολιτάρχης (217); 

264 


LEGAL TERMS IN MACEDONIAN INSCRIPTIONS AND THE N.T. 49 


twice with reference to a decree by an individual acting in an official 
capacity (217: 28-32; 39-41) and once it is used of a decree by the fates. 

The usage of the term δόγμα in the inscriptions is parallel to that 
of the New Testament, in which it occurs five times, four times in the 
plural number (Acts 16:4; 17:7; Eph. 2:15; Col. 2:14), and once 
in the singular (Luke 2:1). In Luke 2:1 and Acts 17:7 the δόγμα is 
issued by an individual, a ruler. In Acts 16:4 the decrees (δόγματα) 
are from the apostles and elders together with the whole church at 
Jerusalem. Their action on this occasion is regarded by the writer 
of the Acts as an authoritative utterance. A position of authority 
over other Christians was ascribed to the leaders and the church at 
Jerusalem. Specifically it is different from the authority attributed 
to the βουλή of a Greek city, but generically, the authority ascribed to 
the δόγμα is the same in both instances. 

In Eph. 2:15 the statutes referred to are those found in the Mosaic 
law, which were currently regarded as coming from God through Moses, 
and as possessing divine authority. When reference is made to the 
decrees or statutes of the Mosaic code the plural denotes a group or 
body of statutes, but when the reference is to the decrees of the elders 
and apostles it denotes the several commands issued by them. 

It appears then that underlying the usage of this term, both in the 
inscriptions and in the scriptures, there is the idea of an authoritative 
utterance. It is also a matter of interest to know that δόγμα was not 
used of decrees made by the Athenian ἐκκλησί. They were called 


ψηφίσματα. 


265 


VI. 


18 


32 


48 


56 


24 


45 


12 


δοκέω 


198 
Ἔδοξεν τῇ βουλῇ Kai τῷ δήμῳ 


[e]tre ation δοκεῖ τάττειν τὸν δῆμον aur- 
‘cle er 


εἰπεῖν δὲ MepSixna κα ὅτι 1 Boxelt δίκα- 


cov | εἶναι 


Ἔδοξεν τῇ βουλῇ καὶ τῷ δήμ- 


ὅ τι dv δο- 

x] [ ag Jov εἶναι περὶ Μεθωναίων, 
"Edo- 

ξεν τῇ ] βουλῇ καὶ [r]o [δ] ἡήμ[ῳ] 


199 
ἔδοξε τῇ βουλῇ καὶ τῷ 


217 
ΝΜ « , 
ἔδοξε τῷ τε πολειτάρχῃ 
καὶ τοῖς πολείταις ὁμογνωμονοῦ- 
σι' 


a κ ,΄, 9 
τοῦτο TO δόγμα €- 
δοξε τῷ διέποντι τὴν ἐπαρ- 
: τὴν ἐπαρ 
id » ig e id 
χίαν Iovviw Povdivw . . . . . 


255 
Ἔδοξεν τῆι ἐπ καὶ τῶι δήμωι, 
ὅτι δοκεῖ τῆι Bovdi é ἐπαινέσαι με- 
[v αὐ]τόν, 
50 


(266 


LEGAL TERMS IN MACEDONIAN INSCRIPTIONS AND THE N.T. 


16 


20 


27 


70 


77 


36 


22 


65 
69 


77 


258 
ἔδοξεν τῇ βουλῇ 


τὴν τοῦ ἀνδρὸς σεμνότητα x(at) βούλησιν 
ἀποδέξασθαι 


352 
ἐκ τῆς δοκούσης 
τάχα τιμίας ὕλης 
671 
"Ἔδοξεν τῆι βουλῆι καὶ τῶι δήμωι: 


δεδόχθαι 


τῆι ΠΡ καὶ τῶι aan 


Ἔδοξεν τ τῆι Boonie καὶ ἜΣ 
δεδόχθαι τῆι « Bovdi 
καὶ τῶι δήμωι 
δοῦναι τόπον ὡς 
βέλτιστον καὶ τοῖς δεδογμένοις ἀκολούθως δια- 
λεγέντος καὶ BovAwvos: δεδόχθαι τῆι βουλεῖ- 
τῆι ἀναθέσει τῆς εἰκόνος ὅν ἄν [τόπον] 
δό[ξηι] τοῖς βουλευταῖς. 


675 
Av’ ὃ δεδόχθαι Anratwy τῆι βουλῆι καὶ τῶι δή- 
ἘΣ τς ΜΕΝ ΝΣ ΣΝ 
742 
. ἐὰν ἀμφοτέροις doxy 
829 
Δοκεῖ δε por . . tt 


τοῦτο ἐμοὶ δοκᾶ τῆς - ἀγαθῆς τύχης ἔργον εἶναι. 


Συμβέβηκε τ τοίνυν τὰ ΠΉΒΗΚΩΙ τῆς 
κώμης ταύτης πλεονεκτήματα 
267 


52 HISTORICAL AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES 


847 
I Ἔδοξεν τῷ δήμῳ 
976 
2 ΓΕ ΟΝ τῆι β[ ο]υ[λῆι] καὶ roe δήμοι, 
53 ὅτι ἂν δοκεῖ ‘dyn Lv ἄλλο. ὅτι ἂν a 
977 
8 | "E8o |£ev [ra] βουλῇ καὶ τῷ one 
15 ἘΣ ΡΝ τῇ ΠΣ 
1130 
ς δεδόχθαι τῇ βουλῇ καὶ τῷ δήμῳ. 
13 τά τε δόξαντα ἄκυρα ἔστω 


Inasmuch as the word δοκέω occurs, for the most part, in a constantly 
recurring formula it is not necessary for the understanding of its meaning 
or usage to quote a larger context in each case, or to give a description 
of each inscription in which it occurs. Under III. (2), where the context 
is transcribed, an illustration of its common usage in the technical sense 
may be found. 

It occurs thirty-two times in the Macedonian inscriptions, and is 
generally used of the expression of opinion in the sense of a public or 
official decree. There are however two other distinct usages of the 
- word in the inscriptions. These three usages are found as follows: 

1. It is used with the technical meaning in referring to official acts 
in the following inscriptions: 198:3, 6, 18, 32, 48, 56; 199:5; 217:24, 
45; 255:4, 12; 258:16; 671:1, 6, 20, 27, 69, 70, 77; 675:36; 742:22; 
829:77; 847:1; 976:2; 977:8, 15; 1130:5, 13. 

2. It is employed in impersonal expressions in which it does not have 
the technical meaning, as in 829:65, 69, δοκεῖ δέ μοι, and ἐμοὶ δοκεῖ where 
it is equivalent to “methinks,” “1 seems to me.’ 

3. Twice it is used in referring to things with the meaning of “‘to be 
reputed” or “esteemed” (352:2; 976:53). 

When the word is used as in No. 1 above it is intended to denote 
an act of authority which for governmental purposes has the force of 
a law. It expresses an opinion which is public and official and not 
private or personal. Such authoritative declarations are made by 

268 


LEGAL TERMS IN MACEDONIAN INSCRIPTIONS AND THE N.T. 53 


some body, or individual, having the right, by virtue of his office, to 
issue such decrees. 

These official acts or decrees may come from: (1) the βουλή and 
the δῆμος (198:3, 6, 18, 48, 56); (2) the βουλή (255:12); (3) the δῆμος 
(847:1); (4) the πολιτάρχης and the πολῖται (217:24); (5) an individual 
ruler (217:45). 

Of the three distinct usages in the inscriptions each has a parallel 
in the New Testament. Generically, the usage of δοκέω in Acts 15:22, 
25, 28 is the same as that mentioned in No. 1 above. That an expres- 
sion of so technical and legal a character should be used in the Acts 
passage is of interest in indicating the attitude of authority which the 
leaders of the church at Jerusalem assumed, or which the author of the 
Acts supposed them to take. Yet it would doubtless be overpressing 
this to make an exact equivalence between their authority and that 
of the βουλή of a Greek city. Nevertheless, it does indicate, in the view 
of the writer of the Acts, that the church at Jerusalem had assumed an 
attitude of authority over the gentile Christians outside of Jerusalem. 

A usage parallel to No. 2 is found in Acts 25:27. 

In Gal. 2:9; Mark 10:42 the word occurs with the meaning of 
“‘to be reputed” or ‘“‘esteemed”’ as in No. 3 above. 

It thus appears that of the usages found in the inscriptions all are 
paralleled in the New Testament, but that the proportion of usages 
is very different. A usage occurring but three times out of sixty-two 
instances in the New Testament appears in the inscriptions twenty- 
eight out of thirty-two occurrences of the word. What might seem 
irom the New Testament to be an exceptional usage is shown by the 
inscriptions not to be soatall. The difference in frequency is the natural 
result of the difference in the character of the literature. 


269 


VII. ἐκκλησία 


(1) 671 
50 Kat παρελθόντος εἰς τὴν ἐκκλησίαν καὶ 
διαλεγέντος ἀκολούθως τοῖς ἐψηφισμένοις, 


All of this inscription is extant. For a translation and description 
of it, and for its place and date see I. A. (9). 

On this occasion the envoy (πρεσβευτής) from Delos was received 
by the ἐκκλησία of Thessalonica. The ἐκκλησία mentioned here was 
composed of the βουλή and the δῆμος, and was a political body having 
authority to legislate for the city to which it belonged. 


(2) 889 
3 δρκίζω οὖν τὴν εὐλογημένην τῆς 
᾿Αμφιπολιτῶν ἁγίας ἐκκλησίας ἐπισκοπὴν 

The whole of this monumental inscription is extant. Only that 
portion of it is transcribed which is immediately concerned with the 
éxxAnoia, It belongs to Amphipolis (I. 4). From the reference in 
it to the Trinity (Il. 3, 5) it is evidently a Christian inscription, but its 
exact date has not been ascertained. The translation of the whole of 
it is here given: “Having lived the common human life with grace 
and dignity, continually having made supplication to receive the hope 
of eternal life from the great and life-giving immaculate Trinity, I 
Liccon lie here. Therefore I adjure the blessed episcopate of the holy 
church of Amphipolis and the highly favored clergy by Father, by Son, 
and by Holy Spirit not to consent that any other person, in the future, 
be buried in this my burial-place.” 

The term ἐκκλησία here denotes the church. This usage is the 
one generally found in the New Testament, but rarely in the inscriptions. 
In this case it is implied that the ἐκκλησία has some authority over the 
burial-place, that it has power to grant or to withhold permission for 
burial in certain places. 

Both of the usages found in the inscriptions for the term ἐκκλησία 
occur in the New Testament in widely different proportions. In one 
hundred and eleven occurrences of the word it is used one hundred and 
eight times with an ecclesiastical meaning, and only three times with 

54 (270 


LEGAL TERMS IN MACEDONIAN INSCRIPTIONS AND THE N.T. δ 


the technical meaning, denoting a political body. In Acts 19:39 the 
word ἐκκλησία is used with reference to a body having authority to 
exercise judicial functions, and is referred to as an ἐκκλησία ἔννομος, 
that is, having legal authority and conducting its business within the 
requirements of the law. This ἐκκλησία ἔννομος is mentioned in 
contrast to the ἐκκλησία then assembled in the theater at Ephesus 
(Acts 19:32, 41), which was neither an ἐκκλησία κυρία, nor an ἐκκλησία 
σύγκλητος. That is, it was not one of the ordinary meetings of the 
ἐκκλησία, nor a specially called meeting, and so the γραμματεύς regarded 
it as an ἐκκλησία which had not conformed to the legal requirements 
for such an assembly. The people had assembled in the theater without 
being convened by any formal call, and disorder prevailed in the meeting. 

In Acts 19:32, 41 the word ἐκκλησία denotes a political body, but 
implies that it was irregular in its proceedings, while in Acts 19:39 
the reference is to the ἐκκλησία in its regular order of procedure. It 
is used with the technical meaning in both cases. Kennedy says, 
“In the New Testament the usage of the LXX determined the sense 
of the word, which is = the public gathering of Christians viewed 
externally as met for a common purpose, or organized with a common 
aim, or viewed from an inward standpoint as a spiritual corporation” 
(Sources of N.T. Greek, p. 99). To this classification of the usage of 
ἐκκλησία in the New Testament its usage in Acts 19:32, 39, 41 forms an 
important exception. The usage in this passage is not derived from 
the LXX, but from the usage common in Greek cities in that period. 
Such a usage was current in Ephesus where this event took place. 


271 


VIII. κληρονόμος 


(1) 180 

7 Εἰ δὲ ὁ κληρονόμος ὃ ἐμὸς 
παραπέμψῃ τι, δώσει 
τῷ ταμιείῳ προστίμου δηνάρια ψν. 


The whole of this inscription is extant, and the last three lines 
are here transcribed, containing the term κληρονόμος. It belongs to 
Thessalonica. Its date has not been ascertained. 

According to this inscription a certain woman, Aurelia by name, 
built a tomb for herself and her husband, and made this demand upon 
her heir: “But if my heir neglect anything he shall pay to the treasurer 
a fine of 750 denarii.” 

It appears that a testator had a right to impose certain obligations 
upon the heir, and to fix a certain penalty for the violation of any such 
conditions attaching to the inheritance. 


(2) 262 


26 (κληρ)ονόμων μου 
ονων ἡ κληρο(νομία) 


This inscription is found in a badly mutilated condition. The 
whole of the left side of it is worn off, so that it is impossible to obtain 
any adequate impression of the subject of it. It belongs to Deriopos. 
Dimitsas thinks that it should be dated in the later Roman period, 
γ᾽. ... 8 αἰῶνα μ. X. (I, 307). Because of the words ὄρνιν and βωμόν 
which occur in Il. 13 and 20, and which are associated with heathen forms 
of worship, Dimitsas concludes that it was written before the introduc- 
tion of Christianity into Deriopos. 

If the restorations made above (Il. 26-27) be correct, there is mention 
made of heirs and of an inheritance, but the context is so imperfect 
that no information can be obtained concerning them. 


(3) 402 
[ἐνορκίζω τοὺς κληρο-] 
νόμους μου πάν- 
τας τοὺς θεοὺς [εἰς 
56 [272 


LEGAL TERMS IN MACEDONIAN INSCRIPTIONS AND THE N.T. 57 


Io τὴν ληνὸν ταύτην 
ἕτερον μηδέν[α κοι-] 


μηθῆν[ a |e. 


Only a portion of this inscription is preserved. The lines transcribed 
are from the middle of it, and contain the word under consideration. 
The inscription was found written upon a sarcophagus outside of the 
gate of Thessalonica. The date is not known. 

According to this inscription a woman, while living, erected a temple 
and built a tomb for herself, and left the following injunction: “I 
adjure my heirs by all the gods not to bury any other body in this tomb.” 
This is another example in which a solemn injunction is laid upon the 
heirs to keep the tomb of the deceased intact. 


(4) : 412 
Ei δέ τις τολμήσϊ ε]κ ἀνοῖξ[ αι], δώσ[ ει] τοῖς 
5 ἐμοῖς κληρονόμοις δηνάρια μύρια. 


The whole of this inscription of five lines is extant, and the last 
two are transcribed. It belongs to Thessalonica. The exact date is 
not known, but from the Latin names (Il. 1-2) it apparently belongs 
sometime in the Roman period. 

It reads thus: “Aurelia Marcia [built this tomb] for her dearest 
husband, the most noble Linius Aelius Nicostratus, from the common 
savings, fora memorial. If anyone shall dare to open it he shall pay to 
my heirs a thousand denarii.” 

The exceptional feature of this inscription is that the fine for dis- 
turbing the tomb of the deceased is to be paid to the heirs, not to the 
treasurer or to the city as was usual at that time. This indicates that 
the testator not only had the right to fix the amount of the fine to be 
paid for disturbing his tomb, but that he had it within his power to 
decide as to who should receive such money. 


(5) 1220 
e|® εἰδὼς κληρονόμων τὴν ἐπιλησμοσύνην 


Ν ~ / ΄ , 
5 καὶ κοινοῦ θανάτου μνημόσυνον προβλέπων 


The whole of this inscription of eight lines is extant, and 4 and 5 are 
here transcribed. It was found in Thasos and belongs to the Roman 
period. It reads thus: “Aurelius Philip the son of Philip of Abdera 
while living built for himself and for his wife Antonia and for his children 

273 


58 HISTORICAL AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES 


[a tomb], well knowing the forgetfulness of heirs and foreseeing that 
his memory would be left behind by a common death. But if any other 
person wish to bury another body he shall pay to the city of Thasos 
two thousand denarii, and to the sacred treasurer two thousand denarii 
besides.” 

Whereas in many inscriptions of this kind a clause is inserted pro- 
hibiting others from using the tomb of the deceased and adding a penalty 
for the violation of this injunction, in this instance permission seems to 
be granted to bury another body in the same tomb by paying for the 
privilege or right. In the prohibitory clauses the fine is as high as 
1,000 denarii for disturbing the tomb, but here the amount named is 
four thousand denarii. It is implied in this inscription that heirs were 
often remiss in the performance of their duties in memory of the 
deceased. 

From these inscriptions it appears that certain obligations might 
be laid upon the heirs by the person bequeathing the inheritance, and 
that for failure to fulfil these conditions the heirs were subject to a 
fine, the amount, of which was determined by the testator. Others 
also were liable to a fine for any desecration of a tomb. ‘These fines 
were payable to the city, the sacred treasurer, or to the heirs as the 
testator directed. It seems to be implied, although not explicitly 
stated, that the persons on whom an obligation is laid always receive an 
inheritance. 

In the New Testament the word κληρονόμος occurs fifteen times, 
with the same meaning, generically, as in the inscriptions. 

Christians are called οἱ κληρονόμοι, “heirs of God’? (Rom. 8:17), 
“heirs of the promise” (Heb. 6:17), “heirs of righteousness’ (Heb. 
11:7), “heirs of the kingdom” (Jas. 2:5). According to the New Testa- 
ment, the basis of heirship is as follows: A son is an heir (Matt. 21:38; 
Mark 12:7; Luke 20:14; Heb. 1:2). All children (τέκνα) are heirs 
(Rom. 8:17). Abraham’s seed are heirs (Gal. 3:29). Justification 
through the grace of Christ constitutes a man an heir (Tit. 3:7). 

The fact that conditions attach to heirship is an element common to 
the inscriptions and the New Testament. In the latter every man 
might become an heir by complying with the conditions of the promise 
given to Abraham. In the inscriptions the one thing most often empha- 
sized is the obligation of the κληρονόμος to fulfil certain conditions 
devolving upon him as heir. When Paul insists that only those who 
fulfil the conditions of heirship are truly heirs, he is making use of a 
well-known principle. 

274 


LEGAL TERMS IN MACEDONIAN INSCRIPTIONS AND THE N.T. 59 


The objection that God does not die and cannot, therefore, have an 
heir, in any true sense of the word, arises from pressing the analogy 
too far. The Christian, who is spoken of as an heir, can assume the 
responsibilities of an heir and enter upon his inheritance without the 
death of God taking place. This is a question not raised by Paul, 
and it is a difficulty only to those who would press the comparison 
into details which are not pertinent to Paul’s use of the term. 

The two indispensable elements are: the assumption of certain 
responsibilities, and the receiving of an inheritance, on the part of the 
heir. These two elements are found both in the New Testament and 
in the inscriptions. The most important contribution which the 
inscriptions make at this point is in emphasizing the ancient idea of 
the right and authority of the person making the bequest to impose 
upon the heir certain conditions which he must fulfil. 


275 


IX. κλῆρος 


() 214 
3 Τίχτε δ᾽ ἐνὶ κλ[ήρ]οις Κερκείνιον. 


The whole of this inscription of six lines is extant. It was found at 
Aiane, a town in the southern part of Macedonia, midway between 
the village of Kozane and the river Haliacmon. Its exact date is not 
known. 

The first three lines read thus: “‘Menedemos was the husband of 
Hadista, and Bouticos begot her. Aiane concealed her in death, but she 
was born in the fields of Circinium.’’ In 1. 3 the phrase, évi κλήροις, 
is to be interpreted, ‘“‘in the fields.”” (Cf. Dimitsas, Μακ., I, 223.) 
Liddell and Scott, under the term κλῆρος, cite Hdt. 9.24 in which the 
κλῆροι are Called ἀγροί. 


(2) 334 
κλῆρον 
ἐ]λεύθ[ ε]ροι 


Of this inscription only the fragment transcribed above is preserved. 
It was found among the ruins of one of the churches in Achrida, but there 
is not enough of the context remaining by which to determine the mean- 
ing of κλῆρος. 


(3) 889 
δρκίζω οὖν, 
τὴν εὐλογημένην τῆς ᾿Αμφιπολιτῶν 
ἁγίας ἐκκλησίας ἐπισκοπὴν 
5 καὶ τὸν ταύτης θεοφιλῆ κλῆρον 


The whole of this inscription is extant. For its place and date, 
and a translation of it see VI. (2). 

The author of this inscription solemnly adjures the blessed episcopate 
(ἐπισκοπήν) of the holy church of Amphipolis and the κλῆρον beloved 
of God not to consent that any other body shall be buried in his tomb. 
The meaning of the term κλῆρος which best suits this context is “the 
clergy,” considered collectively. Examples of such usage are cited by 
Sophocles in his Greek Lexicon of the Roman and Byzantine periods. 

60 [276 


LEGAL TERMS IN MACEDONIAN INSCRIPTIONS AND THE N.T. 61 


The cases referred to are all of a late date: Caius 29 B (A.D. 210); Petr. 
Alex. 448 B (a.p. 304); Anc. 3 (A.D. 314); Basil IV, 429 B (A.D.379); 
Greg. Naz. I. τορι A (A.D. 390). Until we are able to determine the 
exact date of this inscription, it will be necessary to place it not earlier 
than the second century A.D., in order to give a sufficient length of 
time for the development of the episcopacy in the church. The meaning 
of κλῆρος in this inscription cannot be used as a proof that it was 
employed in this sense when the New Testament books were written. 
The usage of κλῆρος in this passage may, however, reflect an earlier 
usage. 

In Goodspeed, Index Patristicus, the following occurrences of κλῆρος 
are given: Tral. 12:3; Bar. 6:6; cit. Rom. 1:2; Mar. 6:2; Diog. 
12:9L; Eph. 11:2; Philad. 5:1. It is also found in Justin Dial 97 :3; 
113.3; Apol. 35.5, 8; 38.4; Dial 98.5; 104.1. 

The word κλῆρος occurs eleven times in the New Testament with 
the following meanings: 

1. It denotes the lot itself: Matt. 27:35; Mark 15:24; Luke 23:34; 
John 19:24; Acts 1:26. 

2. It denotes the object assigned or allotted: (@) an allotment 
or office, Acts 1:17; (0) a portion or share, Acts 8:21; 26:18; (c) an 
inheritance or portion, Col. 1:12 (cf. Isaeus 6:56). In I Pet. 5:3, 
τῶν κλήρων should probably be classified under No. 2, but there is a 
lack of decisive evidence as to the specific meaning of this expression 
in I Peter. 

Concerning the term κλῆρος the inscriptions, Nos. 214 and 889, 
seem to reflect a usage later than the time of the New Testament. In 
880 κλῆρος has a distinctly ecclesiastical meaning as over against its 
legal significance in the New Testament. In the phrase ἐνὶ κλήροις 
the idea of its being an object assigned or allotted seems to have fallen 
into the background, and it is there used as a general designation for 
fields. Although in the New Testament κλῆρος is used of various 
objects, yet it is always with the idea that they have been allotted or 
assigned in a technical or legal sense. 


277 


Ne: λειτουργέω, λειτουργία 


(x) 247 
’ ε ἈΝ , ,ὔὕ -- “ἢ 
οἱ λειτουργείτωσαν, οἱ δὲ κεκτημένοι μόνον ταῖς τῇ 
πιβαλλομέναις λειτουργίαις ὑπεύθυνοι ἔστωσαν τίνα 
ld ’ Ν ε Ν a ΄ 207 
τόπον στόρνυσθαι τὰς ὁδοὺς κοινῷ διατάγματι ἐδήλωσα 
λεύω καὶ ἀντανοὺς συντελεῖν ὑμεῖν εἰς τὰ ἀναλώματα 
ς τὸ τρίτον συνεισφέροντας, ἡ δὲ συνεισφορὰ γενέσθω ἀπὸ 
Lal ᾿ "“"» a” 2 -“ > ~ 
τῶν ἐν Μακεδονίᾳ ὄντων ἀντανῶν εὐτυχεῖτε. 


Most of this inscription is preserved, as here transcribed. It is 
seen that the upper left hand corner is worn, or broken off. It was 
found near Bitolia, in the district of Lyncestis in Macedonia. Dimitsas 
thinks that it belongs to the Macedonian era, before the time of the 
Roman dominion (Μακ., I, 272). 

The verb λειτουργείτωσαν occurs in |. 1, but owing to the fact that 
the upper left-hand corner is broken off, it is not known who performed 
the services. Dimitsas suggests the following possible restorations for 
the beginning of this line: ““οἱ μὲν νόμοι᾽᾽ ἢ “ot μὲν ἄποροι." 

In ]. 2 the dative plural of λειτουργία occurs. 

The services referred to here consisted in the leveling of the ways or 
roads. The owners or masters (κεκτημένοι) were responsible for these 
public services. This tends to show that certain persons in the com- 
munity were under obligation to perform such services for the public. 
This view is confirmed by a passage in Isaeus (7:5) in which three men 
possessing large estates were required to λειτουργεῖν for the city. Cf. 
Dem. 833:26. Thus the λειτουργία does not seem always to have 
been a matter of voluntary contribution. In some cases, at least, it 
appears to have been obligatory. 


(2) 1131 

2 ἀγορανομήσας καὶ ἐν 
ταῖς ἄλλαις ἀρχαῖς καὶ λειτοργίαις 
ἐπιφανῶς πολιτευσάμενος 


The whole of this inscription is extant, and that portion of it which 
contains the word under consideration is here transcribed. It was found 
in Thasos, and probably belongs to the Roman period. It reads as 

62 (278 


LEGAL TERMS IN MACEDONIAN INSCRIPTIONS AND THE N.T. 63 


follows: ‘Aurelius Herodotus the son of Paranomus twice was chief 
of the magistrates, held the office of ἀγορανόμος, and with other offices 
and services he distinguished himself as a citizen, living seventy-five 
years. Farewell beloved” (Il. 1-5). 

The λειτουργίαι are referred to here as a part of the means by 
which Herodotus gained for himself distinction as a citizen. The 
context suggests that the services were voluntary on the part of Hero- 
dotus, but there is no indication as to what these services were. 

A parallel to the usage of these terms is found in the New Testa- 
ment. The verb Aerovpyéw occurs three times, and the noun λειτουργία 
seven times, with the following usages: to denote services rendered 
(1) on behalf of the poor at Jerusalem; (2) to the Lord; (3) on behalf 
of Paul, in personal ministration to his needs; (4) on behalf of the 
people, through the priestly office. 

In Rom. 15:27 the service is obligatory. In this passage the idea 
of obligation to perform the services seems to be moral rather than 
civic or legal as in 247. 

In the Scriptures these terms seem to be associated with religious 
services, and generally with the priestly function. In the inscriptions 
this religious or sacerdotal aspect of the services does not appear. 
Generically the terms have the same meaning in the New Testament 
as in the inscriptions, but specifically they are used with reference to 
different kinds of services. The idea that the λειτουργίαι are services 
rendered on behalf of the people is common to both. 


279 


eo 


ΧΙ. νόμος 


(x) 349 
Mo. ons ὃ Γρηγόριος [ταύτη]ν Θ(ε)ῷ σκηνὴν ἐγεὶρας τὸν θεόγραφον νόμον 
ἔθνη τὰ Μυσῶν ἐκδιδάσκει πανσόφως. "Ἑτεισωκ. 


The whole of this inscription is extant and is here transcribed. 
It was found in a church in Achrida, Macedonia, and belongs to the 
year 1312 A.D., at which time this church was rebuilt by Gregory. 
It reads: “Gregory, having erected this tabernacle to God, teaches 
all-wisely the nations of the Mysians the divinely written law.” 

The νόμος is described as θεόγραφος, thus indicating that it is 
thought of as a written law and as coming from God. The date of 
this inscription is so late that this usage of νόμος cannot be cited as 
evidence for the usage of νόμος in the first century A.D. It is, however, 
interesting to observe that the usage of νόμος which is found here is 
the one most common in the New Testament, where, with two excep- 
tions, it occurs in the singular number, generally denoting a body of 
statutes. 


(2) 666 
Ai μὲν δοθεῖσαι τῷ θεόπτῃ πρὶν πλάκες. 


2 νόμους σκιώδεις εἶχον ἐγγεγραμμένους. 


The whole of this inscription is extant, except parts of the last 
two lines. It was found in a Greek church in Thessalonica, and the 
lines transcribed read as follows: ‘‘The tablets given aforetime to the 
seer had shadowy laws written on them.” 

The plural, νόμους, which occurs in |. 2 denotes individual statutes. 
This usage of the term νόμος is quite exceptional in the New Testament, 
being found only in Heb. 8:10; 10:16, out of one hundred and ninety- 
five occurrences of the word. There being but two instances of νόμος 
in the inscriptions, we should not be justified in entering into an extended 
comparison of the word in the New Testament. As already noted, 
the two usages of the inscriptions find a parallel in the New Testament, 
one of the two being quite unusual in the New Testament, while the 
other is the one most commonly found there. 

64 [2 0 


XII. TOALTAPX NS 


For an exhaustive treatment of the term πολιτάρχης see The 
Politarchs in Macedonia and Elsewhere, by Ernest DeWitt Burton. 

Brief mention will here be made concerning the functions of the 
πολιτάρχαι, and their relationship to the βουλή or governing body of 
the city in which they held office. In the Macedonian inscriptions the 
noun πολιτάρχης occurs seven times (217:24, 36, 40; 258:5; 675:2, 
48; 738:4), and the verb πολιταρχέω ten times (2:2; 248:6; 260:3; 
ΠῚ τ: 305:10; 366:7; 367:13; 36851; 683:4; 886: 4). 

In 248 the office of πολιτάρχης is mentioned as one of several offices 
successively held by a certain man in the city of Lyncestis. This 
man held the office of πολιτάρχης and of ταμίας at the same time, The 
πολιτάρχαι are represented as being subject to the command of the 
βουλή and the δῆμος (248, 258, 365, etc.). In Idranizi a δόγμα was 
passed by the πολιτάρχης and the πολῖται, and on the same occasion 
the πολιτάρχης was enjoined to see that the δόγμα was enforced (217). 
The text is deficient at this point, but it appears as if the πολιτάρχης 
were subject to a double fine (to the imperial treasury and to the city) 
if he should in any way attempt to set aside the δόγμα which had been 
enacted. 

It thus appears that the πολιτάρχης was an officer of prominence 
in the city, and that he exercised both legislative and executive functions. 
In Tzepikobon the πολιτάρχαι assembled the βουλευτήριον (258: 5). 
In Lete they introduced the προβούλευμα in the ἐκκλησίά. The 
πολιτάρχαι and the treasurer of the city were commanded by the βουλή 
and the δῆμος to inscribe the decree and erect the stele (675:2, 46). 
In 365 the πολιτάρχαι are associated with the ἀρχιερεύς and both are 
subject to the command of the βουλή. On this occasion the πολιτάρχαι 
were the officers delegated to see that the decree was executed. 

This is of special significance to us because it occurred in Thessalonica 
where Jason and the brethren were brought before the πολιτάρχαι 
(Acts 17:6-8) who seem to have been acting in a capacity similar to 
that of the πολιτάρχαι mentioned in the inscriptions. In the inscrip- 
tions as in the Acts passage they appear as executive officers, a part of 
whose duties was to see that the laws were enforced. It appears then 
that the only mention of the πολιτάρχαι in the New Testament pertains 
281] 65 


66 HISTORICAL AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES 


to a Macedonian city, and that they were executive officers subject to 
the βουλή or governing body of the city. They were responsible for 
the maintenance of order and the enforcement of the law in accordance 
with the statutes of the city in which they held office. In Thessalonica 
they were associated with the ἀρχιερεύς and probably were subordinate 
in authority to him (365). 


282 


XIII. πραιτώριον 
(1) 281 


Τι(βέριον) Κλαύδιον Φόρτιον, Overpavov 
στρατευσάμενον ἐν πραιτωρίῳ 


For place and date and translation of this inscription see III. (3). 
Only a part of it is extant. 

It is here asserted that Tiberius Claudius served as a soldier év 
mpatwpiw, The word πραιτώριον is simply a transliteration of the 
Latin word praetorium, and is not found in the Greek earlier than the 
first century A.D. To understand the meaning of this term in Greek 
it may be necessary to consider its usage in Latin. The following are 
the various possible meanings which have been assigned to it in the Latin. 

1. The tent of a general (Liv. 10:33). 

2. The official residence of the governor of a province (Tertull. 
ad Scap. §3; Cic. Verr. 2, 4, § 28). 

3. Any spacious villa or palace (Plut. Tib. 39; Juv. Sat. 1:75). 

4. The camp of the praetorian guard (Pitiscus, Thesaur. antiq. iii. 
74; Tac. Ann. 4. 2). 

5. The praetorian guard itself (CL, 336s). 

6. The residence of the emperor at Baiae (cf. Hermes, IV, 102, 1. 2). 

In the lines transcribed above (281:2) the term πραιτώριον must 
come under either No. 4 or 5,as the context seems to exclude the other 
meanings. From the Latin inscriptions it is seen that the phrase, 
miles in praetorio (CIL, 5777), refers to the soldiers of the praetorian 
guard, and militavit in praetorio (CIL, 7328) is precisely analogous 
to the expression στρατευσάμενον ἐν πραιτωρίῳ. The Latin phrase 
means that he served as a soldier in the praetorian guard. There is: 
then a strong probability that ἐν πραιτωρίῳ refers to the praetorian. 
guard rather than to the camp. 


(2) 282 
Τι(βεριος) Κλαύδιος Ῥοῦφος Οὐ- 


ετρανὸς ἐκ πραιτω- 
ρίου δράκοντι τῷ 
ὧδε τειμω- 

5 μένῳ 

283] 67 


68 HISTORICAL AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES 


The whole of this inscription is extant and is here transcribed. It 
was found between Plethar and Troiak and belongs to the same period 
as the preceding one. It reads: “Tiberius Claudius Rufus a veteranus 
of the praetorium to the serpent which is here honored.” 

Here again the Latin inscriptions throw light upon the interpreta- 
tion of the phrase ἐκ πραιτωρίου. The phrase veleranus ex praetorio 
occurs six times (CIL, 3365, 5412, 5595, 7596, 10198, 10286). Here it 
is used of a veteran of the praetorian guard. Following this analogy 
the phrase, ἐκ mpacrwpiov, seems to indicate that Tiberius was a member 
of the praetorian guard. It denotes the soldiers themselves, and not 
their place of encampment. 

This usage of the term in the Latin and in the Macedonian Greek 
inscriptions affords some light on a much-disputed passage in the New 
Testament. 

In Phil. 1:13 there has been much controversy as to the meaning 
of πραιτώριον. Meyer and others contend that it refers to the camp 
or barracks of the praetorian guard, while Lightfoot, with many others, 
maintains that it refers to the praetorian guard itself. While the 
inscriptions do not furnish conclusive proof on this question, they 
tend to sustain the interpretation of Lightfoot in rendering it “‘praetorian 
guard.” 

It should be observed as against Meyer in his Commentary on Phil. 
(4th ed. of the German) that so far as the word itself is concerned or 
its then current usage, it is not impossible that it might be used with 
reference to the residence of the emperor. See the edict of Claudius in- 
the year 46 A.D. 


Bais in praetorio edictum 
Ti Claudi Caesaris Augusti Germanici propositum fuit 
id quod infra scriptum est. 


This edict of Claudius was issued at the town of Baiae “‘in praetorio,”’ 
that is in the residence or palace of the emperor at Baiae (cf. Mommsen, 
Hermes, IV, 102). For the fact that the emperors had villas or palaces 
at Baiae consult Varr. R. R., iii. 17.9; Seneca Ep. 51; Tac. Ann. xiv. 9. 


284 


ΧΙΝ. πρεσβεύω, πρεσβεία, πρεσβευτής, πρεσβύτερος 


Α. πρεσβεύω 
() 248 
2 πρεσβεύσας εἰς Δελφοὺς ἐπὶ τὸν Πύθιον, 


The whole of this inscription is extant, but only the line containing 
the word under consideration is here transcribed. From 1. 7 we learn 
that it belongs to some city in Lyncestis. 

Beginning at the middle of |. 2 it reads: “Paulus Calidius having 
gone as an envoy to Delphi to consult the oracle, having furnished 
money to the city for the purchase of corn, having purchased corn in 
a time of want, having been gymnasiarch at his own expense, while 
holding the office of treasurer and of politarch, having been esteemed 
worthy by a decree of the council of the setting up of images and of 
life-size statues, and while he was gymnasiarch being appointed a son 
of the city both by the city and by the nation of Lyncestis, set up the 
stele at his own expense.” 

This official visit as an envoy to Delphi is mentioned, among other 
good deeds, as something of distinction, reflecting honor on the memory 
of this man. While the object of his mission is not explicitly stated, 
it is implied that he went there to consult the oracle on some matter 
of interest to the public. 


(2) 330 
᾿Αγαθῃ τύχῃ. 
Δασσαρήτιοι Δρύ- 
αντα Κα[ι]πίωνος 
τὸ]ν προστάτην 

5 π͵]ρεσβεύσαντα 
πρὸς τὸν κύριον 
Αὐτ]οκράτορα 


The portion of this inscription which is extant is here transcribed. 
It was found in Achrida. It reads: ‘‘With good luck. The Dasseretae 
[honor] Druas the son of Caepio the chief who went an envoy to the 
lard emperor...” 
285] 69 


70 HISTORICAL AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES 


The name of the person to whom the envoy was sent is broken off. 
The object of his mission is not mentioned, but he was evidently acting 
in a political capacity, going as an envoy for the Dasseretae to some 
emperor. The verb πρεσβεύω is here used in a technical sense, denot- 
ing an official action. 


(3) 

The word ἐπρεσβ(ε)ύσ(αντ)ο occurs in inscription 370, which was 
found in Thessalonica, but the ends of all the lines are broken off, so 
that the inscription is wholly unintelligible. 

The verb πρεσβεύω has the same technical meaning in the New 
Testament as in the inscriptions. It occurs only in II Cor. 5:20 and 
Eph. 6:20, where Paul uses it in a figurative sense of himself as an envoy 
of Christ. Here as in the inscriptions it denotes official action of a 
representative. This usage of πρεσβεύω throws some light on how Paul 
thought of himself as related to Christ in his work as a preacher of the 
gospel. 


B. πρεσβεία 
(1) 37 


ἐλέησον ἡμᾶς ὡς 
5 vio(d)s αὐτοῦ πρεσβΪ ε]ίαις καὶ εὐχαῖς π[άντων 
ἀγγέλων [καὶ] προφητῶν 
For the place, date, and translation of this inscription see I. A. (2). 
The term πρεσβείαις (I. 5) is co-ordinate with εὐχαῖς and is used in 
a prayer, evidently denoting intercessions. 


(2) 

The accusative singular of the noun πρεσβεία occurs in a fragment 
of an inscription (253) found in the region of Moglia, to the north 
of Bitolia, but there is not sufficient context extant to enable us to 
determine what the inscription was about. There is then only one 
occurrence of πρεσβεία in the inscriptions in which its meaning is clear 
to us. 

The usage which we have found in 37 has no parallel in the New 
Testament. The word occurs in Luke 14:32 and 19:14. In Luke 14:32 
one king sends ἃ πρεσβεία to another king to ask him for peace. In 
19:14 the πολῖται send a πρεσβεία to their own ruler. This usage of 
πρεσβεία is in accord with that of the corresponding verb, πρεσβεύω, 
in the inscriptions. 

286 


LEGAL TERMS IN MACEDONIAN INSCRIPTIONS AND THE N.T. 7] 


ει πρεσβευτής 
(1) 217 
45 τοῦτο τὸ δόγμα €- 


Soge τῷ διέποντι τὴν ἐπαρ- 
χίαν ᾿Ιουνίῳ Ῥουφίνῳ διὰ 


τῶν πρεσβευτῶν τοῦ 


For the place and date of this inscription see IV. (2). The whole 
of the inscription is extant in a somewhat fragmentary condition. The 
part transcribed above reads: “this decree is decreed by Junius Rufinus 
who is governing the eparchy by the πρεσβευταί." 

As respects the πρεσβευταί they are acting in an official capacity, 
and are subordinate to Rufinus the governor. They are executive 
officers under the authority of the governor. Their office seems here 
to have more or less of permanency. It is not limited to a single event, 
and in this respect it is more closely related to the conception of the 
office of πρεσβευτής which Paul had when he called himself an am- 
bassador of Christ. 


(2) 671 

36 ἀποστεῖλαι δὲ καὶ πρεσβυτήν 

45 a ee cipéOy Agrawal: 

48 ae Silay dsuetakero: Xora Beutoy 
58 feos Bes ΤΑΔΕ es ἘΣ way 


The whole of this inscription is extant, but only the phrases con- 
taining the term πρεσβευτής are here transcribed. For its place and 
date, and a translation of it see I. A. (9). 

The word πρεσβευτής occurs four times, referring in each case to 
the same man. Boulon was appointed a πρεσβευτής by the δῆμος of 
Delos (1. 57), to go to Thessalonica on a specific mission. He was 
received in Thessalonica in the ἐκκλησία, and was permitted to present 
to that body the matters contained in the decree. Having accomplished 
his purpose, he returned to Delos with the answer of the ἐκκλησία. 
He was not merely an official messenger whose duty ended with the 
delivery of the document in his charge. He endeavored to present his 
cause in as persuasive a manner as possible and so win the approval 
and co-operation of the ἐκκλησία. 

287 


72 HISTORICAL AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES 


Only one πρεσβευτής was sent on this occasion. The number of 
men commissioned on an embassy was variable. In 675 there are 
three, and probably also in 217. 


(3) 675 
40 ἑλέσθαι δὲ καὶ πρεσβευτάς 
49 καὶ εἱρέθησαν πρεσβευταὶ τῶν βουλευτῶν 


The whole of this inscription is extant, but only the phrases con- 
taining the word under consideration are transcribed. For its place 
and date see I. A. (10). 

In this instance the πρεσβευταί were chosen from the members of 
the βουλή, and were three in number. They were chosen by the βουλή 
and the δῆμος and were commissioned to convey to the Roman treasurer 
the decree of honor passed on his behalf, and to urge upon him the 
acceptance of the honor. 

The noun πρεσβευτής is not found in the New Testament in this 
form, but πρεσβύτης in Philem., vs. 9, is apparently the same word, 
with this slight variation in spelling. In the original inscriptions as 
in the original text of the New Testament, the words are without 
accent, and would appear thus, πρεσβευτης and mpeoBurys. The inter- 
change of ev and v in Greek orthography is of common occurrence. 
So far then as the accent and the orthography are concerned, there 
is no reason for making a distinction between πρεσβευτής in the inscrip- 
tions and πρεσβύτης in Philem., vs. 9. See Hort., V.T., Vol. Il, Appen- 
dix, p. 136. 

The πρεσβευταί seem to have been chosen from men of influence, 
as in Lete, from members of the βουλή. They were representative 
officers and generally were appointed for some particular purpose 
pertaining to the welfare of the people. 

In the Epistle to Philemon when Paul designates himself as 
πρεσβύτης it is under circumstances similar to that under which the 
πρεσβευταί of the inscriptions held office. According to Paul’s own 
statement he is in the act of pleading for Onesimus when he uses this 
title of himself. Orthography and accent are variable and cannot in 
this instance be used as an argument to show that πρεσβύτης has a 
different meaning from that of πρεσβευτής. It seems then to be clear 
that ambassador is a possible interpretation of πρεσβύτης in Philemon, 
or rather, that πρεσβύτης (“old man’’) is a transcriptional error for 


πρεσβευτής. 
288 


LEGAL TERMS IN MACEDONIAN INSCRIPTIONS AND THE N.T. 73 


DD; πρεσβύτερος 

(1) IIo 
Μημόύριον Evyeviov 
πρεσβυτέρου 

(2) 11 
Μημόριον 


Θεοδούλου κ[αὶ 


Εὐτροπίου πρεσβυτέρου. 


The whole of each of these inscriptions is extant, and is here tran- 
scribed. They were found in Beroea. The Latin word μημόριον 
for μνημεῖον, and the word Θεόδουλος both point to a late date for this 
inscription, probably as late as the first century A.D. 

It does not seem possible in these inscriptions to decide whether 
πρεσβύτερος is used as a noun or as an adjective. It may be used here 
as an official designation, or it may be an adjective referring to age. 


(3) 1324 
Παίστρατος Κτησιφῶντος πρεσβύτε[ρος 
Παίστρατος Κτησιφῶντος 
νεώτερος. 


The whole of this inscription is extant and is here transcribed. 
It was found in Thasos. 

From the manifest antithesis of πρεσβύτερος and νεώτερος it is 
evident that both words refer to age. Two men of the same name, 
Παίστρατος, are distinguished by terms denoting their relative ages. 

A striking parallel to this usage of πρεσβύτερος is found in I Tim. 
5:1, 2,andinI Pet.5:5. Alford, Kiihl, and von Soden take πρεσβύτερος 
in these passages as referring to official position and not to age. The 
above inscription affords us an example of these two words, πρεσβύτερος 
and νεώτερος, used in contrast to each other where both words refer 
to age. This tends to sustain those who interpret πρεσβύτερος with 
reference to age in the scripture passages. 

The almost universal usage of πρεσβύτερος in the New Testament 
is as an official designation. For an excellent discussion as to the origin 
of this technical usage see Deissmann, Bible Studies, pp. 154-57, 233-35. 
This official usage was common in Egypt, and in all probability in 
Asia Minor before the first century a.D. (Cf. Flind. Petr., Pap., I, iv, 
ὁ τῷ; CIG, 1417). 

289 


XV. στρατηγός 


(1) 346 
Φίλιππος Μουν- 
Ξ τανοῦ ἀνέθηκαν 


-“ ’ 
στρατηγῷ Νικίᾳ. 


The whole of this inscription of six lines is extant, and the last 
three are here transcribed. It was found near Lake Lychnidos in Mace- 
donian Illyria. It reads as follows: ‘‘Epicadus the son of Genthius 
and Philip the son of Mountanus set up [this monument] to Nicias 
a orpatnyds.”” 

Only one man is mentioned as holding the office of στρατηγός, and 
nothing is said as to his functions. This inscription seems to have 
been inscribed to his memory by private individuals rather than by 
the city. 

(2) 

The word στρατηγός occurs in inscriptions 622, 630, 631, 649, 650, 
651, and 660. They were found at Thessalonica and belong to the 
ninth century A.D., which is too late to be of value in this investigation. 
At this late date the office seems to have been held by but one man, 
and to have pertained to a city or province: that is, it was political. 


(3) 675 
12 ἐφ᾽ οὺς καὶ ἐκπορευθέϊντ]͵]ος Σέξτου 
Πομπηΐου τοῦ στρατηγοῦ καὶ παραταξαμένου 


-“" » -“ 
μετὰ τ|ῶν ἰδίων στρατιωτῶν. 


The whole of this large inscription of fifty lines is extant. The 
portion transcribed illustrates the usage of στρατηγός. For the place 
and date of this inscription see I. A. (10). 

The word στρατηγός is here a military term, applied to the well- 
known Sextus Pompeius, general of the army. 

The inscription is in honor of Marcus Annius the Roman treasurer, 
and in recounting the favors which he had done for the city of Lete, 
and the enemies against whom he had fought in their behalf, reference 
is here made to certain enemies, “‘against whom also Sextus Pompeius 
the στρατηγός went forth, and drew up in battle order with his own 


soldiers.” 
74 [290 


LEGAL TERMS IN MACEDONIAN INSCRIPTIONS AND THE N.T. 75 


(4) 

Reference is made to the στρατηγός of Thessalonica in inscriptions, 
711, 714, 715, 716, and 717, but nothing is said as to the duties of his 
office. 

It appears then that the term στρατηγός is used to designate (1) a 
military officer, (2) an officer of a city, (3) an officer of a province. 
The third sense is common in papyri. 

Unfortunately most of the inscriptions in which the στρατηγός is men- 
tioned are very brief, and no reference is made in them to his functions, 
except in the case of Sextus Pompeius. With this one exception the 
form of the title seems to indicate that the office of στρατηγός pertained 
to civic or political matters, rather than to military. It was not a 
title limited to the designation of one particular office. In this respect 
its use here is similar to that of στρατηγός in the New Testament. 

The word is used only by Luke. It occurs seven times in the plural 
number (Luke 22:4, 52; Acts 16:20, 22, 35, 36, 38), and three times 
in the singular number (Acts 4:1; 5:24, 26). In Acts 5:26 the στρατηγός 
of the temple goes with the ὑπηρέται to make an arrest. In Luke 
22:55 the στρατηγοί of the temple are among those who come to arrest 
Jesus. In the sixteenth chapter of Acts the στρατηγοί of Philippi 
exercise judicial functions. The κύριοι of a slave girl led Paul and 
Silas to the στρατηγοί of the city for judgment. The στρατηγοί had 
authority to beat, imprison, or set free, except in the case of Roman 
citizens who could demand a formal trial. 

In Latin the corresponding term praefectus is used in the same manner 
as στρατηγός in the inscriptions. In neither case is the term limited 
to the designation of a particular office. The functions pertaining to 
the various offices were specific, but the term denoting the office was 
general. This will account for the use of the word στρατηγός in the 
New Testament, in referring to men holding different kinds of offices. 


291 


XVI. ταμιεῖον 

(1) 180 

7 Ei δὲ 6 κληρονόμος ὃ ἐμὸς 
παραπέμψῃ τι, δώσει 
τῷ ταμιείῳ προστίμου δηνάρια ψν. 


The whole of this inscription of nine lines is extant, but only the 
last three lines are transcribed. For its place and date see VII. (1). 

A certain woman erected a tomb for herself and husband and made 
this provision: “but if my heir pass over anything he shall pay to 
the treasury a fine of 750 denarii.” 

It is clear that ταμιεῖον here denotes the treasury, in all probability 
the treasury of the city. 


(2) 413 
4 δώσ[ε]. τῷ τα[ μ)]ιείῳ ἔφ. 

Only the latter portion of this inscription is preserved, and only 
a part of the last line is transcribed. 

The extant portion reads: “‘but if any one, having opened the tomb, 
dare to bury another without the consent of my wife, he shall pay to 
the treasury five hundred denarii.” It belongs to Thessalonica. The 
date has not been ascertained. Money is to be paid to the ταμιεῖον, 
that is, to the treasury. 


(3) 420 
3 εἰ δὲ ply, δ]ώσ[ε]. τῷ ταμ[ ε]ΐῳ ὑπὲρ ἑκάστης] ληνοῦ * 

Only a small fragment of this inscription is preserved. It was found 
in Thessalonica. The part transcribed is the only intelligible statement 


in the extant portion. Reference is here made to the payment of a 
certain sum of money to the ταμιεῖον. 


(4) 426 
5 δώσει τῷ [ἱε]ρωτάτῳ ταμείῳ προστείμου * μύ. 


The whole of this inscription of five lines is extant, and the last 
line is here transcribed. It was found in Thessalonica. 
76 [292 


. LEGAL TERMS IN MACEDONIAN INSCRIPTIONS AND THE N.T. 77 


A husband and wife built for themselves a tomb and made this 
provision: ‘‘but whoever dares to bury any other person besides those 
added in writing, he shall pay to the most sacred treasury a fine of 
440 denarii.” 


(5) 447 
3 δώσει τῷ κυριακῷ ταμείῳ 
δηνάρια πέντε χιλιάδας. 


The whole of this inscription of four lines is extant, but only the 
last clause of it is transcribed. It was found at Kalamaria near Thessa- 
lonica. It reads: ‘“‘Gaius Julius Eutychus, while living, built this 
tomb for himself, and if any person, after I am buried, open it and 
bury another, he shall pay to the imperial treasury 5,000 denarii.” 
This reference to the imperial treasury shows that the inscription 
belongs to some time in the imperial period. 


(6) 740 
8 δώσει τῷ ἱερωτάτῳ ταμῖ εΐῳ 
* μύρια 


The whole of this inscription is extant, but only the last two lines 
are transcribed. It was found in Sokho which lies between Thessalonica 
and Sirrhae. Dimitsas dates it about the first or second century A.D. 
(Max., II, 602). 

A certain man, Dionysius, erected a tomb for his son and provided 
that if any other person should use this tomb for burial, he must pay 
to the most sacred treasury 12,000 denarii. 


(7) 781 


δώσει προστείμου To ταμείω * καὶ τὴ πόλει .β. 
ρ μ' rs - ; ” ? 


The whole of this inscription of five lines is extant, and the fourth 
line is transcribed. The inscription was found in Amphipolis, and 
belongs to the year 205 A.D. 

A certain man built a tomb for himself and his wife and on it he 
wrote the following: “And if any other man shall dare to open [this 
tomb], or to bury another body in it, he shall pay a fine to the treasury 
of 10,000 denarii, and to the city 12,000 denarii.”” In this case the 
ταμιεῖον does not refer to the treasury of the city, as one fine is paid 
to the ταμιεῖον and one to the city. 

293 


78 HISTORICAL AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES 


(8) 829 
Ν A μα “- “ 
στιν γε καὶ ἐπὶ τῇ τῶν 
> , 4 A “~ A. 63 Ν ae , tz 
ἀνθρώπων σωτηρίᾳ TO τοιοῦτο Kal ἐπὶ τοῦ ἱερωτάτου ταμιείου 
15 is ὠφελείᾳ. 


The whole of this inscription containing eighty-seven lines is pre- 
served, except the first eight lines of it. Beginning at the middle of 
1. 13 a line and a half is transcribed above. 

In this inscription a protest is made against certain unjust practices 
of the ruling classes in oppressing the common people, and it is asked 
not only that their demands be granted, but that they be inscribed 
and set up in some public place. In support of their protest they say 
in the lines transcribed above: ‘‘Such a thing is for the safety of men 
and for the advantage of the sacred treasury.”’ In this instance the 
interests of the sacred treasury are closely associated with the welfare 
of men in general. 


(9) 1220 
7 οὗτος δώσει τῇ Θασίων πόλει δηνάρια Β 


Ἁ -“ε , , a” /, D> 
καὶ τῷ ἱερωτάτῳ ταμείῳ ἄλλα δηνάρια B. 


The whole of this inscription is extant, and the last two lines are 
here transcribed. For its place and date, and a translation of it see 
VEL (ΝΣ 

In this inscription, as in 781 above, money is to be paid both to the 
ταμιεῖον and to the city. 


This dissertation presupposes that we no longer regard the Greek 
of the New Testament as an isolated language. Its sources are to be 
found in (1) the Greek inscriptions, (2) the non-literary Greek papyri 
of Egypt, (3) the current Greek literature of that period, (4) the Sep- 
tuagint. In these four sources there is essential unity, with some 
slight variations. 

The Septuagint is in ‘‘translation Greek.”’ It is the Greek in common 
use at that time, with some modifications in construction conforming 
to the Hebrew idioms which it translated. Ideas and concepts appeared 
in the Hebrew Scriptures which were foreign to the Greeks, and so 
new Greek words, in some cases at least, were formed to express these 
new concepts. In other instances familiar Greek words were used 
with a different shade of meaning. 

294 


LEGAL TERMS IN MACEDONIAN INSCRIPTIONS AND THE N.T. 79 


In the non-literary Greek papyri the language of everyday life is 
used. Many private letters have been found which preserve for us 
the vernacular of the common people. 

As respects inscriptions they were scattered over the whole area 
of the Greek-speaking world, and are an important factor in showing 
that the Greek spoken throughout the Roman empire was in the main 
homogeneous. While they were written in the Greek then current, 
they are probably farther removed from the spoken language than are 
the non-literary Greek papyri. The inscriptions were intended for the 
public, and so were more formal, more nearly in accord with the literary 
usage of the time, than were the personal letters found in the papyri. 
They were for the most part of a legal or technical character, and so 
were expressed in a more formal manner than the spoken language. 

The prose literature of that period might be taken as a sufficient 
source for the New Testament Greek, were it not that it seems to be 
pretty well established that writers of the New Testament drew more 
largely from the oral language of the common people than did such 
writers as Polybius, Josephus, or Philo. In this respect a closer parallel 
to the Greek of the New Testament is to be found in the Greek papyri. 
A wider range of usage may be obtained from the inscriptions than 
from a single writer. 

This treatise is concerned with only one of these sources, the Greek 
inscriptions, and that from a definite geographical area. The inscrip- 
tions from Macedonia are rather intimately related to the writings of 
the New Testament. Some of the first gentile Christian churches 
were founded in Macedonia. Some of the first epistles written by Paul 
were to churches in Macedonia. Most of these inscriptions belong to 
the time in which the κοινή was the current language, and are themselves 
written in this “common” Greek. 

In view of these facts it is evident that any lexical research in the 
field of the inscriptions will have a bearing upon the language of the 
New Testament. Those inscriptions which contain legal and govern- 
mental terms are in the very nature of the case connected with official 
business, and such terms have almost invariably a strictly technical 
meaning in the inscriptions. In the New Testament these legal and 
governmental terms are generally used in a figurative sense, in religious 
phraseology. It is not therefore to be supposed that there will be an 
exact parallelism of usage in these two fields, but their figurative usage 
in the New Testament depends for its significance upon the strictly 
technical meaning assigned to the terms in literature which is mani- 

295 


80 HISTORICAL AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES 


festly intended to be official and technical. In this respect it is hoped 
that this investigation may, in some measure, make a contribution 
toward a better understanding of the writings of the New Testament, 
and that the word-index will be of value to all those who desire to make 
further investigations in the field of the Macedonian inscriptions. 


296 


INDEX OF THE MACEDONIAN INSCRIPTIONS 


‘int 
δ ν 


᾿ 
Nt) 
Waitt 


ἀβλαβεῖς, 203: τό 

ἀβλαβῶς, 203:12 

ἀγαθός, 2-ςς:13; 
764:4; 1130:4 


675:4; 


INDEX 


ἀγοράζειν, 217: 30 

ayopavounoas, 248: 2; 1131:2 
ἀγορανομήσαντα, 1084:3 
ἀγορανομ(εύ)σαντες, 678:6 


ἀγαθοῦ, 218:6 

ἀγαθῆς, 829:69 

ἀγαθῷ, 469: 5; 1090:3 

ἀγαθῇ, 1:1; 243:4; 262:1; 
ΠΟΙ Σ; 342:1; 800: Σ; 
ΤΟΥΤῚ 113073; 1141: 
eye drse:x:; 126621; 
I4IO:1; ΤΑΥΤῚ 1412:1 


ἀγορανόμου, 272:7 

ἀγορανόμωι, 1364:10 

ἀγορανόμον, 1364:7 
ἀγορασίαν, 248:3 
ἀγρόν, 763:4 
ἀγχιθέων, 1127:4 
ἄγεις, 5:11 

ἄγειν, 258:20; 1369: ὃ 

ἀγομένη, 820: 76 
ἀγών, 374:2 

ἀγῶνες, 675: 40 


ἀγαθῆι, 671:27; 848:1; 
1364:1 

ἀγαθόν, 976:25, 50, 54; 
1130:5 


ἀγαθοί, 976: το, 40 


ἀγαθοῖς, 432:2; 701:1; 
976: 29 

ἀγαθάς, 198: 28 

ἄγαλμα, 329:10; 669:6; 
670:12 


ἄγαν, 117223; 141334 
ἀγάπη, 674:1 
ἀγγέλων, 37:6 
ἄγγος, 1364: ς 


Gytos, 646:1; 7O1:1; 707:1; 


840:1 
ἁγίου, 
1585:1 

ἁγίων, 37:3; 363(9):3 
ἁγίοις, 61071 
ἁγίας, 592:3; 889:4 
ayla, 1108:4 

ἁγιωτάτης, 1109: 2 
ἁγιωτάτου, 591: 1 
ἁγιωτάτῃ, 89:12 

ἀγλαΐα, 670:14 

ἀγλάϊσμα, 3290:19; 117233 

ἀγλαόν, 1172:5 

ἀγλαῶς, 8060: 3 

ἁγνός, 46:11 

ἀγορᾶς, 675:46 

299] 


251:0; 


646: 3; 


dyGvas, 671:74 
ἀγῶνα, 675:39 
ἀγωνίζωνται, 671:11 
ἀγωνισάμενοι, 374:5 
dywvober}oavros, 371:9 
ἀγωνοθέτου, 55:8; 367: 5 
ἀγωνοθέτην, 60:3; 373:8; 
ΘΙΥ 4; ον -O1252 
ἀδαής, 397:9 
ἀδάμας, τιό: 1 
ἀδελφή, 67:3; 680: 4 
αδελφῆς, 363(10):4; 900: 
be) 
ἀδελφῇ, 408:5; 
528:4; 888:2 
ἀδελφάς, 281:8 
ἀδελφός, 423:3 
ἀδελφῷ, 102:1; 254:6; 
411:3; 436:5, 8; 460: 2; 
496:3; 547:3; 685:3; 
688:2; 769:5; 786:2; 
1007:7 
ἀδελφοί, 506:1; 685:2 
ἀδελφοῖς, 160:2; 480:4 
ἀδικεῖν, 198: 21 
ἀδικεῖσθαι, 198: 21 
ἀδμήτην, 1172:13 
ἀδόλους, 203:16 
89 


436:3; 


ἄδολως, 203:12 
ἀδώροις, 45:8 
ἀεί, 671:4, 24 
ἀειμνήστων, 240:2 
ἀέναος, 241:2 
ἀζήμιος, τοϑ: 40 
ἁζόμενος, 1127:4 
ἀθάνατος, 403:12 
ἀθανάτων, 1140:3 
ἀθιγής, 173:7 
ἀθλοῦντα, 362:7 
ἄθυρον, 1172:9 
af, 1161:7 
ἀϊδίου, 1172215 
ἀίδιον, 498:5; 1419:4 
αἰθερείαις, 46:7 
αἴθρην, 1172:5 
αἵματος, 106:3 
αἶγα, 1219:1 
αἱρέσεσιν, 258:19 
αἱροῖντο, 855:8 
αἱρεθέντες, 1130:15 
ἁλ[ςίσκωνται, 847:6 
ἦρεν, 787:2 
ἀραμένη, 165:8 
αἰτῶν, 787:3, ὃ 
αἰτίαν, 671: τς 
αἰτίας, 829:81 
αἶψα, 329:7 
αἰών, 74:11 
αἰῶνος, I411:10 
αἰώνων, 702:2 
αἰωνίου, 365:4; 880: 2 
αἰώνιον, 418:2; 780: 5 
αἰωνίοις, 829:3 
ἀκατάγνωστον, 304:4 
ἀκέραιον, 17:2 
ἀκολούθως, 671:51, 69; 820: 
38 
ἀκούω, 1419:7 
ἀκμῆ, 670:16 


ἄκρας, 359:4 


ἀκρατῆ, 1369:15 


84 LEGAL TERMS IN MACEDONIAN INSCRIPTIONS AND THE N.T. 


ἄκυρον, 1369: 14 
ἄκυρα, 1130:13; 1369:3 
ἄλγος, 1162:8 
ἀλδήσκοντες, 329:4 
ἀλειφούσης, 2:1; 53:1 
ἀλείψαντα, 51:4 
ἀλεξητῆρα, 257:7 
ἀλευάμενον, 1127: 2 
ἀληθῶς, 829: 41, 47 
ἁλικήν, 590:7 
ἁλίσκει, 63:15 
ἀλλάσσεσθαι, 763:14, 22 
ἀλλαχοῦ, 829:30 
ἀλλά, 5:9; 163:46; 198: 46; 
217:9; 329:6, 16, 22; 
403:93 477:3; 625:7; 
742:21; 829:34, 39) 525 
74, 84; 1161:6; 1369:8; 
1417:9, 11; 1419:7 
ἀλλ᾽, 37:4; 258:11, 25; 
398:6;  403:18, 25; 
498: 6; 829: 27; 1162:5; 
1172:3, 13; 1369:14; 
1413:4, 1419-9 
ἄλλος, 670:7, 13 
ἄλλου, 163:9, 32; 855:14 
ἄλλο, 198:55; 255: 185 
976: 50 
ἄλλοι, 855:11; 1141:3 
ἄλλαι, 668: ς 
ἄλλων, 42:15; 1142:10; 
1320:2; 1360:7 
ἄλλοις, 67ς5:30; 820: 54 
ἄλλας, 217:10; 829:51 


ἄλλα, 217:43; 255:20; 
668:6; 976:32, 43, 545 
1220:8 


ἀλόχῳ, 165:1; 401:6 
ἀλύτοις, 401: 7 
ἀλφῶν, 363:3 
dua, 1110:5; 1172:9 
ἀμείνους, 198: 12 
ἀμέμπτως, 172:8; 
457:25 458:2 
ἀμήν, 37:8; 909:8 
αμήτου, 54:11 
ἀμοιβήν, 787:3 
ἀμπλακημάτων, 352°5 


394:2; 


ἀμπλακιῶν, 363:6 
ἀμύμων, 363:4 
ἀμύμονος, 301:5 
ἀμφί, 410:2 
ἀμφότεροι, 199:3; 320: τὸ 
ἀμφοτέροις, 5:10; 100:11; 
742:22 
ἄμφω, 76:3 
ἀμώμῳ, 463:1; 517:1 
ἄν, 198:26, 41, 44, 48; 
200: 6; 363(5):45370: 2) 
409:2; 410:4, 415:2; 
§02:1; 743:4; 776:4; 
979:17, 45, 46, 47, 50; 
1130:20, ΣΙ, 13,155 10; 
TIAT? 47 1321: 8: 1800: 
0.12, 14.,,.21 
ἀναγκάζουσιν, 820: 28 
ἀναγκαῖος, 370:12 
ἀναγκαῖον, 829:35 
ἀναγκαίως, 820: 86 
ἀνάγκη, 820: 53 
ἀναγορεῦσαι, 671:10 
ἀναγραφῆς, 675:47; 743°3 
ἀναγραφῇ, 258:3 
ἀναγραφῆι, 671:75 
ἀναγραφήν, 671:65 
ἀνέγραψαν, 1130:2 
ἀναγραφέντα, 829:61 
ἀναγράψαι, 256:6; 671: 
τὸ" 9472153) ΤΥ: 10; 
1141:3 
ἀναγράφσαντα, ο70: 33 
ἀναγράψαντες, 1369:16,18 
ἀναγραφῆναι, 675:45 
ἀναλώμασι, 62:6 
ἀνεδείχθης, 670: 12 
ἀναζεῦξαι, 855:16 
ἀναθέσεως, 248:5 
ἀναραιρημένος, τ304:3 
dvatpepnuévov, 1304:5 
ἀνάλημψιν, 829: 29 
ἀναληφθείς, 612: 2 
ἀνάλωμα, 1130:11 
ἀναλώματα, 247:4 
ἄναξ, 329:2, 13 
ἄνακτος, 350:2 
ἀναξίως, 106:4 
300 


ἀναπαυσαμένη, 37:10 
ἀμπαύεσθαι, 401: 5 
ἀναστάσεως, 620: 5 
ἀναστάτους, 820: 4 
ἀνέθηκε, 1085:4 
ἀνέθηκεν, 62:7; 213°43 
222:2; 248:8; 253:6; 
335:9; 1186:2; 1373:2 
ἀνάθηκεν, 780:3 
ἀνέθηκαν, 61:3; 88:2; 
346:5; 823:2; 1187:2 
ἀνέθηκον, 220: 5 
ἀνέθετο, 520:2 
ἀναθεῖναι, 671:28 
ἀνατίθημειν, 126:8 
ἀνέτρεφον, 320:3, 14 
ἀνδραγάθησε, 116:3 
ἀνδρείας, 675:35. 
ἀνδρείαν, 670:8 
ἀνδριάντων, 248: 5 
ἀνήγειρον, 320: τὃ 
ἀνηγέρθη, 351:1; 355:17; 
872:1 
avevdeds, 829: 21 
ἀνεῤῥήθη, 1369: 2, 3 
ἄνευ, 829: 29 
ἄνευθε, τότ: ὃ 
ἀνηλίκῳ, 1140:1 
ἀνήρ, 255:13; 508:3; 764: 
4; 1130:4 
ἀνδρός, 126:5; 218:6; 
258:17; 340:3; 625:3 


ἀνδρί, 15:3; 16:6; 27: 
2; 20:3; 39:3; 40:2; 
86:3; 95:3; 96:2; 
97:3: τοῦ 7 ἴον 5s 
143:3; 147:3; 166:3; 
176:4; 179:4; 180:3; 
224:2; 262:7; 290:3; 


308:8; 33:25 363(5): 
3; 388:4; 390:2; 301: 
2; 405:3;412:2;443:5) 
444:2; 445:4; 449:35 
451:2; 466:4; 467:4; 
409:23 524:1; 529:9; 
540:1; 547:2; 627:2; 
683:6; 765:2; 810:2; 
843:2; 845:2; 865:1; 
847:2; 1421:10 


ἄνδρα, 8:2; 98:2; 162: 


3; 104:2 
ἄνδραν, 687:2 


ἄνδρες, 612:1; 976:10, 40 


ἀνδράσιν, 976: 29 
ἄνδρας, 403:6; 743:1 
ἀνθοφόρου, 1140:2 
ἀνθοφόρον, 1134:3 
ἀνθρώπινον, 889: 1 
ἄνθρωπος, 116:5 


ἀνθρώπων, 668:5; 829:14 


ἀνθρώπους, 742:4 
ἀνθύπατος, 367:2 
ἀνθυπάτου, 221:4 
ἠνιαρήν, 361:8 
ἀνῖξε, 475:5 
ἀνίην, 361:8 
ἀνεῖσθαι, 217:32 
ἀνίκητε, 829:49 
ἀνέστησε, 434:6; 747:6 
ἀνέστησεν, 747:5 
ἀναστάς, 46:9 
ἀνιστορήθην, 355:4 


ἀνοῖξαι, 412:4; 740:6; 
781:3; 9333 


ἀνοίξας, 413:1; 447:2 
ἀνοίξῃ, 89:10 
dvrapelac Gat, 589:7 
ἀντανῶν, 247:6 

ἀντανούς, 247:4 
ἀντί, 

1163:8 
ἀντίασεν, 214:4 
ἀντιβολεῖτε, 363: 5 
ἀντιγραφῆς, 829:49 


ἀντίγραφον, 761:54; 933:3 


ἀντίγραφα, 1369:17 
avréypavas, 829:13 
ἀντιγραφονώνης, 126: 24 
ἀντιδίδου, 353:4 
ἀντέλαβον, 397:14 
ἀνύξῃ, 409:4 
ἄνχι, 5:2 
ἄνω, 45:10 
ἀνώτερον, 675:6 
ἀνωνύμως͵ 362:8 
ἀξίαν, 353:5 
ἀξιολογώτατον, 1412:3 


976:27, 44, 50; 


INDEX 


ἄξιολογωτάτην, 
1411:4 
ἄξιος, 180:5 
ἄξιον, 198:40; 
671:3 
ἀξιώσει, 671:38, 53 
ἀξιωθείς, 248:5; 671:67 
ἀξιώματι, 524:2 
ἀξίως, 671335 
ἀξίωσις, 829:70 
ἀξιώσεως, 829: 66 
ἀπαγγέλλουσι, 977:13 
ἀπαγωγήν, 976:17 
ἄπαιδα, 1161:4 
ἀπαλλαγείς, 1386:3 
ἀπαναλίσκειν, 258:23 
ἀπαντήσωσι, τοῦ: 490 
ἅπαξ, 361:7 
ἀπαρχῆς, 1188:2; 1189:1 
ἅπασι, 1127:5 
ἅπαντες, 280:1 
ἁπάντων, 978:18 
ἅπαντα, 976:45 


ἀπελεύθερος, 993:3; 1340:2 


ἀπελευθέροις, 10:4 
ἀπελευθέρα, 905: 2 
ἅπερ, 976:45 


ἀπό, 195:3; 198:30; 247:5; 

506: 3; 
829:41; 
829:50, 64; 869:3; I1IO: 
1338: 3; 


248:1; 
700: 3; 


296: 3; 
740:6; 


7 II61:1; 

I4I1:5 

ἀπ᾽, 1162:53; 1411:10 
ἀποβεβληκώς, 670:3 
ἀπογραφή, 1:2 
ἀποδείξωσιν, 1130:11 

ἀποδεδειυγμένος, 248:6 
ἀποδέκταις, 1131: 2 
ἀποδέξασθαι, 258:18 

ἀποδεξάμενον, 675: 43 
ἀποδώσει, 671: 37 


374: 5; 


85 


1410:2; ἀποικίας, 976:50 


ἀποκλείουσι, 217: 22 
ἀποκληρωθέντων, 258: 2 
ἀπέκτεινεν, 675:18, 30 
ἀπολήψονται, 743:1 
ἀπολαβεῖν, 889: 2 
ἀπολιμπάνοντες, 820: 27 
ἀπολιμπάνοντας, 820: 50 
ἀπόλογοι, 1130:14, 15 
ἀπολόγους, 1364:9 
ἀπελύθη, 1133:3 
ἁπολέσῃ, 37:3 
ἀπεπέμψαμεν, 671: 54 
ἀπορίαν, 820: 83 
ἀπέστειλεν, 1067:1 
ἀπέστιλεν, 932:3 
ἀποστεῖλαι, 671: 536 
ἀποσταλέντος, 671: 48 
ἀποσταλείς, 671: 57; 
675:4 
ἀποθέστε, 776:6 
ἀποθέσθαι, τ3ος: 2 
ἀποτεθῆναι, 776:4 
ἀποτελεσθησόμενα, 560: ς 
ἀποτετειμημένην, 217: 38 
ἀποτετιμημένοις, 217:33 
ἀποτίνειν, 1329:1 
ἁψάμενος, 1413:4 
αποφαίνει, 255:6 
ἀποφθίμενον, ττό3:2 
ἀποφθίμεναι, 1172:10 
ἄρα, 360:5; 362:10 
dpyos, 671:12 
ἀργυρίου, 126:10; 829:29 
ἀργυρίωι, 763:18 
ἀργύριον, 248:3; 258:20, 
25 
ἀργυρόηλε, 362:10 
ἀρειοτέρην, 320: 5 
ἀρέσασι, 37:7 


ἀποδώσουσιν, 675:42 
ἀποδοῦναι, 217:41;671:59 
ἀποδόντος, 671:40 
ἀποδόσθαι, 763:23 
ἀπέδωκεν, 671: 59 
ἀποδοθῆι, ογ76:21 

301 


ἀρετῆς, 21:4; Ξ2ΟΣΕΣ: 
378:8; 379:9; 401:3; 
671: 14, 34; 746:6; 811:9; 
1071:4; Τ1122:1τ: TIz076 
ἀρετήν, 165:7 

ἀρετῶν, 670:2, 5, 10 
ἀρετᾶς, 329:1 


80 LEGAL TERMS IN MACEDONIAN INSCRIPTIONS AND THE N.T. 


ἄριστος, 1128:2 
ἄριστον, 373:6 
ἀρίστην, 320:15 
ἀρίστους, 160:7 
ἀρκουμένων, 217:16 
ἤροσε, 214:1 
ἅρπασε, 1161: 1 
ἄῤῥενας, 660:5 
ἀῤῥήκτοις, 623:1 
ἀῤῥωστίας, 625:4 
ἄρσενα, 1163:5 
ἄρτι, 398:9; 1161:1 
ἀρχαίαν, 217:20 
ἀρχήν, 671:7 
ἀρχάς, 203:6 
ἀρχαῖς, 113173 
ἀρχιεπισκόπου, 35 1:12; 591: 
2; 610:2; 622: 5; 626:1; 
697:2; 700:5 
ἀρχιερατεύοντος, 59:3; 351: 
10 
ἀρχιερεύς, 1136:5; 1145: 2 
ἀρχιερέως, 55:7; 240:1; 
812:7; I109:4; 1132:1 
ἀρχιερῖ, 366: 4 
ἀρχιερέα, 365:10; 369:9; 
373273 378:4; 379:4; 
STL ΤΙ 35. 012:22 
ἀρχισυνάγωγος, 747: 2 
ἀρχιτεκτονοῦντος, 678:9 
ἄρχειν, 200:5 
ἄρξεται, 36ς: 12; 369:11 
ἄρξας, 1131:1 
ἀρξάμενος, 370: 22 
ἄρχων, 1147:10 


ἄρχοντος, 53:3; 216:2; 
26502 O77015 2200-25 
1364:1 


ἄρχοντι, 629:4; 658:5 
ἄρχοντες, 976:45; 1130: 
TEs ΤΙ δὺ 1309: 4 

ἀρχόντων, 1130:1 
ἄρχοντας, 976:46 

ἀσκήσας, 670:8 

ἀσπασάμενοι, 675: 41 

ἀστήρ, 670:6 

ἀστοί, 563:5 

ἀσύνκριτον, 1411:6 


ἀταλοφρόνα, 1172:13 

ἀτέλεια, τ26ρ:1 
ἀτέλειαν͵ 763 :27 

ἀτελής, 1369 312 
ἀτελεῖς, 198:9, 32 

aréovra, 63:8 

αὖ, 4:5; 1419:9 

αὐγᾶς, 1417:6 

αὖθις, 362:2 

αὔριον, 255:19; 256:8; 
976: 38 

αὐταδέλφων, 622:1; 872:4 

αὐτίκα, 198:5, 6 

αὐτοκράτορος, 351:8; 365: 2; 


367:5; 369:1 
αὐτοκράτορα, 333:2; 590: 
2; 829:66; 1089:13 
1408: 1 
αὐτοκράτορι, 366: 2, 63683 :1; 
829 :1 


αὐτοκρατόρων, 622:2 
αὐτοκράτορας, 243:7 
αὔχημα, 670:1 
ἀφαιροῦνται, 217: 22 
ἀφειληφότας, 976: 20 
ἀφῆκες, 329: 20 
ἀφῆκεν, 258:11 
ἄφθιτος, 523:3 
ἀφιερώθη, 607: 1 
ἀφικνόμενος, 671: 36 
ἀφράστοις, 353:1 
ἄχαριν, 262: 29 
ἀχράντου, 880: 3 
ἄχρι, 208:3 


βάθρου, 721:2 
βάθρον, 6γο: το 
βάθρων, 355:1; 

611:3; 1286:2 

βαίνων, 403:A, 3 
ἔβη, 1172:6 
ἔβης, 498: 2 

βεβαμμέναις, 806: 2 

βαρβαρικῆς, 670: 4 

βάρβαρον, 660:5 
βαρβάρων, 675: 23 

βάρη, 829: 46 

γεβαρώμεθα, 829:56 

302 


593:1; 


βασιλείας, 278:4; 
355:5; 1108:5 
βασιλείαν, 806:7 

βασίλειον, 669: 2, 6 

βασιλεύς, 763:1; ὅ40:1 
βασιλέως, 351:6, 8; 831: 

1; 849215) Tre4rs 
βασιλεῖ, 885: 4 
βασιλέα, 1124:2 
βασιλέων, 622:2 

βασιλικός, 637:1; 
1361:1 
βασιλικοῦ, 622:4; 631:2; 

647:5; 659:3; 717:1 
βασιλικῷ, 629:3; 630:2;3 
638:3; 639:4; 642:3; 
656:1; 657:3; 658:3; 
660:4; 707:2 
βασιλικῶν, 634:2; 635:3 

βέβηλος, 607:1 

βελτιοῦσθαι, 829: 12 

Béorn, 663:4 

Bi ov, 647:7; 662:5; 663:6 

βίαν, 829:22, 41 

βιάζεσθαι, 829: 23 
βιαζομένους, 217: 30 

βίου, 1134:4; τόδ: Ὁ 
122255 
Bly, 310:1; 787:9 
βίον, ττό: τ; 184:3; 195:3 

βιότου, 308:3; 401:7; 
4o3 1: 

βιοτήν, 563:3 

βιωσάσῃ, 598:1 
βιώσας, 410:1 
βιώσαντι, 224:1 

βλέπων, 625:8; 787:8 

βλίβειν, 675: 25 

βοηθείας, 208:3 


351:7; 


648: 4; 


βοήθει, 638:1; 640:1; 
642:1; 64421; 6.7: 1: 
657:1; ὄιϑιῖ; 50. 1: 
δόο:τ; ὁ6ό:τ; ΟΟΞΞΥΣ 
675205 )ΟΒΘΤ 
βοήθη, 636:2; 630:1; 

719:1 
βοηθεῖν, 589:7 
βοηθουμένου, 829:70 


βορείος, 548:4 
βουλευτήριον, 671:17; 682: 
14 
βουλευτηρίου, 248: 5 
βουλευτής, 744:1 
βουλευτῶν, 675:3, 49 
βουλευταῖς, 671:77 
βουλευτοῦ, 399: 12 
βούλονται, 217:19 
βούλεσθαι, 675: 25 
FOUN SOTs ΤΣ, 52:1: 
1369: 21 
βουλῆς, 1:6; 37:8; 25 5:1; 
258:27; 365:0: ο76:3:1, 
33; 977:14, 15; 1130:3 
βολῆς, 256:7 
βολές, ογ6:40 


βουλῇ, το8:3, 32, 57; 
199:5; 258:16; 977: 8, 
10; I130:5 


βουλῆι, 255:4, το, 12; 
ΠΟ ss. 32,205, 27,.ὄ 46; 
ὅγε: 36; 976:2 

βουλεῖ, 671:70; 976: 54 

βουλήν, 198:26; 203:6; 
Desa we O70:19:: 076: 
30 

βουλαί, 668: 5 

βούλων, 671:1 

βουλαῖς, 1140:3 

βούλωνος, 671:70 
βούλησιν, 258:17 
βουλόμενοι, 976: 23 

βούλοιντο, 855:11 

βουληθῇ, 1220:6 

βραχύν, 184:3 
Bporots, 1172:4 
βροτοῖσι, 403:4 
βρύσιν, 1361:3 
βωμῷ, 262:22 

βωμῶι, 671:31, 64 

βωμόν, 262:20; 348:6; 
363(5):5; 386:6; 560: 
33 747:6 

βωμούς, 374:4 


γαίη, 46:8 
γαίης, 694:5 


INDEX 


γαμβρός, 89:6 
γαμβρῷ, 436:6; 483:4 
γαμίης, 1172:14 
γάμον, 1163:1 
γάμων, 1162:5 
γάρ, 76:3; 89:3; 106:4; 
401:2; 403:A’, 11; 820: 
79; 1172:7 
γεινομένων, 258:13 
γειναμένοις, 1140:8 
γείτων, 1388:4 
γενεή, 403:A’, 10 
yevérns, 1172:12 
γένημα, τότ: τ 
γένος, 76:2; 1130: ὃ 
γενηθείσης, τ560:2, 10 
γένυν, 4το: 2 
γέρα, 46:6 
γερουσία, 1411:2 
γερουσίας, 1410:7 
γερουσιάζουσιν, ΤΑ411:12 
γῇ, 403:A’, 2 
Viv, 217: 21, 33, 38; 847:4 
γηθόμενον, 398:B’, 2 
γηθόσυνος, 361: 1 
γήραος, 4:6 
γίγας, 625:5 
γέναν, 1163:5 
γίγνηται, 
199:9 
ἐγίγνετο, 198:8, 303 970: 
47 
γίγνεσθαι, 829:4 
γίνεσθαι, 675245 
γεγονότας, 198:17 
ἐγένετο, 501:3; 
976:10, 40 
γένηται, ΤΙ30111 
γενέσθω, 247: 5 
γενέσθαι, 769:7 
γενόμενος, 1302:2 
γινομένου, 2:8: 24 
γενόμαν, 307:7 
γενόμην, 397:10 
γενόμενα, 365:8 
γενομένους, 261:8 
γενόμαν, 307:7 
303 


LOSES.) py τὸς 


700: 5; 


87 


γενόμην, 397: 10 
γεγένηται, 1130:4 
γνώσῃ, 909: 3 
γλαφυρᾷ, 670:13 
Ὑλοικοτάτῳ, 1421:8 
γλυκείᾳ, 185: 4 
γλυκύ, 1110: 2 
Ὑλυκυτάτη, 411: 2 
yAuKuTadTy, 30:2; 78:4; 
5. 25 T20s2 ivi 35 
399:6; 415:2; 429:3; 
40270552500 
Ὑλυκυτάτῳ, 172:3; 179: 
3; 21032; 363(5):2; 
410:3, 411:3; 435:3; 
407:4; 476:2; 532:1; 
740: 2 
Ὑλυκυτάτοις, 414:2; 620: 
3; 929:9 
γνησίοις, 1051:7; 1082:7 
γνώμης, 742: 21 
Ὑνώμην, 255:11; 977214 
γνώμας, 198: 28 
γονεῖς, 446:6 
γονεῦσι, 442: ὃ 
γονεῦσιν, 200:6; 408:4; 
620:3 
γνῶσιν, 29:67 
γονῆες, 329:9 
γοναῖσι, L161:5 
γόνον, 625: 2 
γόοις, 1163:2 
ypddous, 427:2 
γραμμάτων, 13690:17 
γράμματα, 829:61 
γραμματεῖ, 976: 31 
γραμματέα, 256:7; 976: 
33, 49 
γραμματοφυλάκιον, 368:8 
ἐγραμμάτευε, 198:2, 4, 58 
ἐγραμμάτευεν, 970:5; 
977:6 
γράψατο, 76:5 
γραμματεύοντος, 678: ὃ 
γραμματευόντων, 596:5 
γεγραμμέναις, 258:10 
γραψαμένους, τοῦ: 30 
γεγράφαται, τοϑ: τὸ 


88 LEGAL TERMS IN MACEDONIAN INSCRIPTIONS AND THE N.T. 


γυμνασιαρχοῦντος, 364:7 

γυμνασιαρχήσας, 248:4, 6 

γυμνασίαρχον, 307:5 
γυμνασιάρχου, 1132:1 

γυμνασίου, 216:2 
γυμνασίοις, 1417:7 

γυνή, 48:6; 74:10; 134:23 


TT ARORA Rte is ae ue Ke pp 6 

1330205) 141825 1:2; 

1594:4 

γυνακός, 301:2; 41374; 
849:4 

γυναικί, 78:5; 303:1; 
300:5) 14; .Ζ251:2; 
419:2; 429:4; 454:2; 
457:1; 484:2; 494:2; 
520:2; 543:2; 555:1; 
665:2; 769: 5; 815:3; 
862:3; 1220:2; 1580:1 

yuvatka, 72:2; 82:2; 
130.:2;  D5O1s5 2204s 
254:4; 1134:2; 1339:3 


ἐδάη, 46:6 

δαιμονίῳ, 536:3 

δαίμων, 562:3; 1161:2 
δαίμονες, 74:5 
δαίμονα, 498:6 

δάκρυ, 403:A’, 2 
δακρύων, 773:6 

ἐδάμασσε, 1127:1 
ἐδάμασσεν, 320:7 

δάμαρτε, 46:2 

δαπάνην, 55:5 

δάφνης, 671:9, 13, OF 

δέ, 502:2; 503:7; 668:6; 
669:6; 670:12; 671:12, 
17, 18, 36, 64; 675:8, 
18, 35, 45; 694:8; 740:4; 
FAQCEU ΤΣ ΜΔ): fis Nps ses 
776:4; 781:2; 806:5; 
811:4, 6; $29:22, 29, 33, 
36, 44, 59, 65, 75, 76, 85; 
84710) 54,173) 855° 3; 
US VET ΘΟ. ΟῚ, 22. a2. 
38, 45, 50, 52, 59, 60; 
ΤΎΞΟΣΙΟΙ Τῷ, EA eG Τὸ; 
ΤΙ ΤῸ, 1220:Ὁ; Τ205:2; 


1321:3; 1364:2, 4, 6, 8, 


8, ἀδὲ 113001, 19; 225 
1418: 2 
δ᾽, 20421. Wiss peony: 


362:2; 397:12; 398:6; 
498:3; 561:7; 563:3, 


4; 625:7, 26, 30; 
607745 ΘΔ ΣΤ 1122: 
4; 1130%9,. 21; “13; 
1110:2; τιύζι,. 8; 
1163:2, 3, 5,73 1208:2; 
1369:9 


ἔδει, 403:8 
δέονται, 976:50 
δειχθείς, 670:1 
δεῖνα, 198:52; 1132:1, 3; 
1369: 23 
δεῖπνον, 743:15 
δέλτοι, 354: 2 
δέμας, 4:1; 1172:5 
δέον, 593:2 
δέδορκε, 1163:8 
δέσποινῆς, 351:2; 592:4 
δεσπότῃ, 213:1 
δεῦτε, LI10:1 
δεύτερον, 371:5 
δευτέρᾳ, 305:4 
δευτέρα, 198: 53 
dete, 353:2 
δέξατο, 1122:4 
δέξας, 116:2 
δεχόμεθα, 829:35 
ἐδέξατο, 46:5 
δέωνται, τοῦ: 56 
δεήσῃ, 829:67 
δέηται, 742:12 
δεόμεθα, 
ἐδέοντο, 976:17 
δεομένοις, 820: τό 
ἐδεήθησαν, 829:3 
ἐδήλωσα, 247:3 
ἐδηλώσαμεν, 820: 38 
δημαρχικῆς, 366:4 
δημαρχικός, 63:3 
δημαρχικῆς, 371:4 
δῆμος, 50:1; 52:1; 198:20; 
671: 5, 12, 25; 671:33, 
41, 59; 672:1; 927:4; 
904 


1080:2; 1085:1; 1338:1; 
1339:1; 1340:2 
δέμος, 976:61 
δήμου, 255:17; 365:95 
369:5; 671:39; 671: 
57; 675:5; 743:13; 
1130:32; 1360:0) 2Σ 
δήμῳ, 198:3, 32, 57; 
199:6; 255:4: 847:1; 
1130:6; 1369:2 
δήμωι, 671:1, 8, 20, 23; 
28, 43, 47; 675:36; 
743°5 
δήμοι, 976: 2 
δῆμον, 198:5, 6, 27, 50; 
255210, 12; Ο71:1}, τ; 
35,» 38, 70; 977:13, 15 
δημόσια, 217:41; 847:10, 21 
δημοσίῳ, τοϑ: τὸ 
δημοσίων, 217: 5, 32 
δηναρίων, 25 8:27; 261:3 
δηνάρια, 80:13; 217:42; 
ΔΟΙ:1Ο; 409:3; 410: 5; 
411:6; 412:5; 415:4; 
417:4; 410:7; 447:4; 
475:7; 476:4; 503:3; 
1220:6, 7; 13232215 
δῆτα, 360:1 
διά, 198: 22; 2οϑ: 2; 217:47; 
248:5,8; 261:9; 365:9; 
369:8; 378:5; 4370:5; 
593:2; 671:67; 675715, 
25; 829:19, 33, 49, 57, 
79, 81, 85, 86; 872:2; 
Θ80:1; E1093 33) ΣἸΞ "ἢ; 
1276: 4; 13221:2 
60, 21:5; 671:49 
διέβην, 398:5 
διαβοήτου, 829: 25 
διαβόλαιον, 355:5 
διαγραφῆς, 1108:3 
διαγωγήν, 742:15 
διαγαγών, 889:1 
διαθήκη, 128:3 
διαθήκης, 348:5 
διαθήκην, 258:12, 19 
διαθηκῶν, 369:6 
διαθήκας, 281:6 


διακατέχοντες, 217: 11 
διακώννου, 363 (7): 4 
διαλεγέντος, 671: 51, 60 
διαλειπούσας, 370: 20 
διαμονῆς, 365:4 
διαπραχθῇ, 198:55 
διαπύρῳ, 806:4 
διασώσαθ, 403: τὸ 
διατάγματι, 247:3 
διάταξιν, 217: 26 
διατάγμασιν, 820: 68 
διετέλεσαν, ογ76:43 
διατετέλεκεν, 675:6 
διατηρήσας, 675:33 
διαφέροντα, 0930:1 
διαφερόντων, 675:9 
διαχειροτονῆσαι, 198:5 
διδύμους, τόο: ς 
δίδωσι, 763:3, 18, 27 
διδόναι, 217:31 
διδόασιν, 976: 22 
δώσει, 401:3, 9; 410:5; 
415:4; 418:4; 420:2; 
420:5; 447:33 475:7; 


476:4; 740:8; 781:4; 
ΤΟΝ 1208: 2: 
1315:1 

δώσετε, 370: ὃ 

δόσας, 932:4 


ἔδοσαν, 217:13 

ἔδωκε, QIO: 11; 1172:7 
ἔδωκεν, 763:10, 25 
δοθεῖσαι, 666: 1 

δώσι, 363 (5):6; 41175; 


412:4; 413:4; 417:3, 
τος; 501:2; 776:7 
δοῦναι, 403:8; 671:39, 
68, 74; 743:10; 976: 
38; I130:11 
ἔδωκε, 400:9 


δούς, 258: 25 

δόντος, 55:5; 399:9 

δεδωκέναι, 820: 60 

δέδοκται, 570: 26 
διεξάμειπτο, 1162:3 
διέποντι, 217:46 
διηνεκεῖς, 589:9 

διηνεκοῦς, 812:11 


INDEX 


δικά, 136525 
δικασάσθω, 1130:16 
δικασάσθων, 1130:14, 15 
δικάζεσθαι, 1364:9 
δικάσωνται, ττ30: 15 
δίκαιον, 198:18 
δικαίων, 589:8 
δικαιοσύνῃ, 701: 2 
δίκη, 403:12 
δίκην, 403: Γ΄, 4 
δινοτάτοισι, 45:8 
διόδων, 217:23 
διπλόα, ττ62: 3 
δίς; ΘΟΣΥ ΔΑ 511: 
1134:3 
δισσοῖς, 1163:4 
δίχα, 403: Α΄, 5 
δίψῃ, ΤΙΙΟἹῚ 
δόγμα, 1:6; 
45; 308:4 
δόγματος, 258:3 
δεδοδένω, 261:4 
195705) τὸν 2555125 
829:69; 976:53; 977:15 
δοκῇ, 198:48; 742:22 
δόξηι, 671: 76 
δοκούσης, 352:2 
δοκοῦντα, 829:77 
ἔδοξε, 199:5; 217:24, 45 
ἔδοξεν, 198:3, 32, 56; 
55:3: 250-107 O71: 1, 
20; 847:1; 977:8 
[[Ἐ] δοχσεν, 976:2 
δόξαντα, 1130:13 
δεδογμένοις, 671: 9 
δεδόχθαι, 671:7, 27, 70; 
6752363, 113075 
δόλιχον, 56:3, 5 
δόλος, τοῦ: 1 
ἐδόμηει, 833:2 
δόμον, 408: 2 
δόμοις, ττότ: 4 
δόξης, 675:35; 840:τ 
δόξαν, 702:2 


21 7:20: .,.0, 


δοκεῖ, 


δόξας; 1161:3; 1162:9 
δουλευθέντες, 126:6 

δοῦλος, 278:1; 670: 22; 
849:3 


305 


89 


δούλου, 674: 2 
δούλῳ, 63151; 
638:2; 639:2; 
644:2; 647:2; 
Osta Oses2: 
657:2; 658:2; 659:2; 
660:2; 708:1; 1ΙΟ14:2 
δοῦλον, 835:2; 1364:6 
δούλην, 125:10 
δούλων, 1369:5 
δραχμαῖσιν, 198: 38 
ἔδρασεν, 1138:2 
δρόμον, 1163:3 
δύναται, 255:13; 1130:4 
δύνανται, 976:25, 58 
δυνάμεθα, 829: 46 
δυνάσθω, 1369:13 
δύνασθαι, 829:30 
δυνάμενοι, 829:36 
δύνηται, 255:18 
δυνησόμεθα, 820: 50 
δυνατώτεροι, 217:16 
δυνάστου, 675:22 
δυσάθλιον, 45:4 
δυσί, 671:9, 62 
δυσίν, 671:14 
δυσμενέων, 1127: 2 
δύσμορον, 1161:1 
δυσπενθής, 1161:8 
δυσπενθές, 1162:7 
δύσωσιν, 262:16 
δωρεάν, 399:13; 400:11 
δῶρον, 353:2 
dup’, 1162:10 
δώροις, 45:8 


636:3; 
640: 2; 
650:1; 
654:1; 


ἐάν, 83:1; 198:11, 13, 10, 
20, 24, 27; 208:6; 217: 30; 
255-103 401235) 145325; 
417:2,; 447:2, 475:5; 
476:3; 740:4; 742:22; 
829:55, 60; 977:17 
ἐάμ, 198: 23, 56 


ἑαυτοῦ, 80:1; 220028 
258:9; 303:1; 434:3; 
494:2; 542:3, 1134:2; 
ΤΥ 53 220: 
ἑαυτῆς, τό2:3; 176:4; 


194:2; 288:4; 340:2; 


90 LEGAL TERMS ΙΝ MACEDONIAN INSCRIPTIONS AND THE N.T. 


404:2; 463:4; 460 
514:1; 687:3; 1081 
1411:8 

ἑαυτῷ, 78:6; 80:2; 106 


243 
=i Si 


ἐᾷ; 


20 5:4: 203:2 
287:3; 399:2 
418:1; 429:2 
436:8; 447:1 
2462:5; 471τ:0: 
483:3; 488:4; 404:4; 
ΒΤ 8: 5:2. 9 7:2: 
845:6; 1220:2; 1298:1 

ἑαυτῇ, τότ: 2: 179:6; 
287:5; 390:3; 402:2; 
427:2; 431τ:6; 444:5; 
445:4; 449:5; 459:1; 
465:6; 400:3; 509:1; 
ΒΞ: Ἐν. 60r: 53) 82824; 
845:3; 874:3 

ἑαυτόν, 82:4; 99:3; 675: 
16 

ἑαυτήν, 260:5 


ἑαυτῶν, 305:3; 


ΘΒ 5 Ὡς 
; 406:3; 
; 434:2; 
> 454:3; 
> 475:4) 


740:5; 


813:7; 1412:6 
ἑαυτοῖς, 204:2; 
387:7; 394:1; 
417:1, 410:4; 
435:9; 455:3; 
493:5; 495:3; 
863:12 
ἑαυτούς, 281:7 
ἐγείρει, ΤΙ21:1 
ἤγειρε, 611:2 
ἤγειρεν, τ4τ7:0 
ἐγείρας, 3401:1 
ἐγγόνῳ, 409: 2 
ἐγγόνοις, 394:1 
ἐγκλημάτων, 1121:1 
ἐγκαταλιπεῖν, 829:30 
ἐγκατέχει, 1140:2 
ἐγκώμιον, 240:1 
ἔδαφος, 5:4 
ἕδει, 360:3 
ἕδη, 361:6 
ἕδρα, 362:τ 
ἕδρ᾽, 361:4 
θέλητε, 208:6 
ἠθέλησεν, 2:8: 25 
θελέτω, 1369:8 


2077: 
414 
426 
456 
496 


10; 
ΩΣ 
ὝΣ 
eae 
35 


ἔθνους, 248:7; 675:11 
ἔθνη, 349: 2 

ἔθος, 1380:7 
ἔθου, 670:10 

ἔθ᾽, 361:7 
ἔθει, 370: 21 


εἰ, 83:2; 180:7; 198:51; 
855: 
1369:1; 


370:8; 420:2; 
17; 1172:5; 
1417:6 
εἰδέ, 412:4 
εἰδήμονα, 112211 
εἰδῆτε, 671: 54 
εἴδειν, 308: 4 
εἰδότες, 403:11 
εἰδέναι, 365:6 
εἰκοστῷ, 410:1 
εἰκοστόν, 1163: 3 
εἰκόνων, 248:4 
εἰμή, 820: 54 
εἰμή, 361:4 


ἐστί, 397:4; 408:6 
ἐστ 1. 
ἔσχεν, NAG GSTs 307,1. 


764:4; 829:13, 53, 71; 


1140:3 
εἰσί, 976: 57 


ἴῃ, 742:4’, 6 

εἰν, 363:4 

εἵνεκεν, 401:3; 829:25 
εἰρήνηι, 675:33 


els, 40:9; 173:23 


217: 28, 
42, 248:2, 3; 255:8, Io, 
19; 258: 23; 279:6; 329: 2; 
353:5; 396:4; 419:6; 
607:1; 64222, 45 6711 85) 
16, 17, 18, 29, 30, 35, 37, 
50, 60; 672:4; 675:11, 
20, 44, 45; 740:5; 743°9, 
749:9; 764:6; 787:2; 
829:22, 27, 41, 55, 76, 
78, 83; 1108:4; 111076; 
1130: 6; Biss 833258) 
1369:16; 1417:10 

és, 195:3; 198:25; 360: 


ἦν, 4:3; 116:3; 1364:4, ὃ 

ἔστω, 200:4; 203:10, 13; 
742:9; 847:22; 1130: 
13; 1369:12 

ἔστων, 1369:6, 9 

εἶναι, 125:10; 198:0, 
49, 60; 255:17, 22; 
829:38, 69; 9847:11, 
976:15, 20,45; 1130:6; 
1364:5, 6 

ἐών, 909: 4 

ἐώντων, 198: 38 

dy, 1130:4 

ὄντος, 593:6 

ἔην, 214:1 

ἦεν, 329:8 

ὄντα, 671:38, 73 

ὄντας, 255:15 

ἐόντας, 1364:8 

ἔσκε, AOL: 2 

ἐσσομένοισι, 76:7 


306 


5; 847:16; 909:7; 
976: 10, 38, 40, 41, 52, 
59; 1369:18; 1419:6 
εἰσάγοντι, 763: 20 
εἰσενέθηκεν, 5:8 
εἰσέλαχεν, 160:9 
εἰσφέρει, 666: 4 
εἴτε, 198:6 
etws, 1369:12 
ἐκ, 16:4; 20°53) Ὅδη5, 
8ο: 1: 87:1: 143:4;149:2; 
E793 45) 1 TSO323 ΣΕ ΝΣ 
LOS2 0s ΟΣ Aree ory 


231:5; 248:4, 8; 258:12, 
21; 26025; ΟῚ 2; 52. 


204:4; 200:7; 300:6; 
352:2; | 355: 03) 901 
3; 365:7; 369:6; 380:3; 
403°6; 4ELs 233) 4125: 
417:1;  419:5;  426:2; 
429:3; 462:4; 463:3; 
475:3; 476:2; 4099:2; 
§36:63) | 550: 1;))) SGqn25 
ΟΖ 1; ΟΣ: 2;, OOneae 
675:31; 740:3; 764:4, 
6; 786:4; 804:3; 811:7; 
909:7; 927:4; 976:18, 
20: |) 106972; ))) Tosera:: 
1085:3; 1087:1; 1089:3; 
1130:8; 193533 ΤΟΙ 9. 


1286:2; 1348:5; 1588:3 
€Y, 198: 355 214:3; 742:17 


ἕκαστος, 198:39; 306:3 
ἑκάστου, 198: 36 
ἑκάστης, 420:2; 1364:8 
ἕκαστον, 829:50 

ἑκάστοτε, 855:4; 
1364:7 

ἑκάτερον, 203: 4 
ἑκατέρους, 742: 21 

ἕκατι, 1162:9 

ἑκατόν, 363:(4), 2 

ἐκβάλλειν, 217: 37 

ἐκβιάζονται, 217:17 

ἐκγόνοις, 763:12, 20, 29 

ἐκδιδάσκει, 349: 2 

ἐξεδίκησεν, 562:7 

ἐκεῖ, 217:8; 299:7 

ἐκείνου, 29:5; 179:5; 181:4; 
786:4 - 
ἐκείνῳ, 20:6; 

86: ς 
ἐκεῖνα, 217:18 
ἐκεῖσε, 820:25 

ἐκκλησίαν, τοῦ: 54; 255:11Ὶ 
671:50 
ἐκκλησίας, 889: 4 
ἐκκλησιάσατο, 217: 1 

ἐνλείπων, 675210 

ἐκπληροῖ, 11233 
ἐκπληρῶν, 682:12 

ἐκπορευθείς, 675: 26 
ἐκπορευθέντος, 675: 

ἐξετέλεσε, 623:1 
ἐξετέλουν, 563:5 

ἔκτινε, 562:3 

ἐκτός, 933:4 

ἐλαττοῦσθαι, 820:23 

ἐλατίνων, 742: τι 

ἐλαχίστους, 829:41 

ἐλέησον, 37:4 
ἐλεηθέντες, 820: 57 

ἐλεύθερον, 27 5:17 
ἐλευθέραν, τ2θ: τι 

ἐλευθερωθείς, 207: 3 

ἐλλαμπτώματα, 820: γ8ὃ 

ἐλπίς, 6γο: τι 
ἐλπίδος, 1172:14 
ἐλπίδων, 670:15 
ἐμαυτῷ, 4το:4 


976:45; 


179:5; 


INDEX 


ἐμαυτῇ, 
1421:4 

ἐμέθεν, 1172:6 

ἐμμενῶ, 742:23 

ἐμπέραμον, 1122:2 

ἐμπονεῖν, 217:29 

ἐμπόριον, 199:7 

ἐν, 4:3; 14:6; 45:6; 46:5; 
Τοῦτα 107235) 10971, 2) 
EIA ΖΘ ΤΟΝ 55:2; 
160:2; 18ο: ς; 108:14, 53; 
20023) ὩΙ) πο 247/50; 
DAS ACS 255350) ΟΣ ΤῈ: 
27825%)  2hns2ee 32Ο: Ὑ9) 
350:6; 362:7; 397:8,12; 
398:4; 4012; 403:5, 7; 
420:1; 548:3; 589:2, 4, 
5; 593:6; 610:1; 646:4; 
670:15, 22; 671:10, 42, 
63, 64; 675:10, 14, 19, 
27, 29, 33, 39, 46; 
679:5; 697:4; 701:1, 2; 
763:5, 18; 769:2; 787:9; 
801:4; 829:3, 17, 19, 26, 
29, 58, 60, 61, 75; 836:1; 
855:7; 869:5; 872:5; 
889:7; 976:28, 35, 36, 
ΒΡ Omega LeOG se 
vif ei Fa ΤΡ ΤΊΣ τὸ 
1 Ὑ2 15:25. 120023710, ὃ. 
Ly, 22; 1274. 21. taro: 
ἐμ, 198:28; 763:11, 19 
évi, 214:3; 329:17; 363:4 

ἐναγισμόν, 461: 3 

ἐναντίον, 20Ο: 2 

ἐννάτου, I110:7 
ἐνάτης, ο77: 5 

ἔνδικα, 362:10 

ἐνδοξοτάτου, 607: 2 

ἐνδόξως, 1086: 2 

ἐνδοτέρω, 106: 2 


409:2; 524:1; 


~ 


ἔνεστιν, 9Q3:1 

ἕνεκα, 199:5; 855:10 

ἕνεκεν, 105:43; 215:4; 221: 
4; 378:9; 482:4; 671: 
15, 34, 61; 672:2; 709: 2; 
746:7; 749:8; 811:10; 
1130:6 
ἕνεικεν, 5:3 


307 


91 


ἐνεπιδημοῦντες, 829:S80 

ἔνθα, 403:1; 561:7 

ἐνθάδε, 37:9; 172:11; 184: 
4; 403:22; 507:4; 502: 
1; 597:4; 889:3; 909:5; 
1007:4 
ἐνθάδ᾽, 5:14 

ἐνθέων, 670:10 

ἐνιαυτοῦ, 198: 36 
ἐνιαυτόν, 258:12, 20, 24; 

370: 20 

ἐνίκα, 1133:3 

ἔννομον, 829:15 

ἐνοικοῦντας, 829:13 

évox dover, 829:81 
ἐνόχλησεν, 829:43 

ἐνοχλήσεως, 820: 86 

ἐνταῦθα, τοῦδ:τ; 
697:1 

ἔντευξιν, 829:65 

ἐντιμοτάτων, 206: 3 

ἐντολαῖς, 820: 38 

ἐντομίδα, 447:1 

ἐντοπίου, 622:6 

ἐντυγχάνουσιν, 671:4, τὸ 
ἐντυγχάνοντας, 1130: 5 

ἐντετύχομεν, 820: 30 

ἐξ; 255:13: 288:4; 
(3) 6; 562:8; 
801:1, 33 977:18 

ἐξαγωγήν, 742:13, 15 

ἐξάγειν, 198:37, 40; 742:13 
ἐξάγουσα, 198: 41 
ἐξάγοντι, 763:30 

ἐξεῖναι, 1141:5 

ἐξελαύνονται, 217:4 

ἐξημμένος, 670: 5 

ἐξέλθῃ, τοῦ: 52 

ἐξεῖναι, 217: 20 
ἐξόν, 217:18 

ἐξόδου, 355:3; 608:2; 8ο1: 
2; 802:2, 4; 803:3; 804: 
3; 872:3; I109:5 
ἐξόδων, 206:2; 111074 

ἐξουσίας, 829:35 

ἔξοχος, 802:3 

ἑορτάσιμον, 258:14, 21 

ἑοσφόρος, 670:6 


τοῦ: 4; 


263: 
589:8; 


92 LEGAL TERMS IN MACEDONIAN INSCRIPTIONS AND THE N.T. 


ἐπαγγειλάμενοι, 976: 26 
ἐπαινῶσι, 198: 28 
ἐπαινέσαι, 255:12; 671: 
71; 675:373 743:5, ὃ; 
976:39, 56; 1130:6 
ἐπακούει, 403:13 
ἐπάκουε, 403: 27 
ἐπαρχίας, 829:34 
ἐπαρχίαν, 217:40 
érapxelav, 675:32 
ἐπαρχιακῷ, 217: 29 
ἐπαρχικῶν, 217:4 
ἐπανῦξαι, 415:3 
ἐπεί, 52590 4052055208 75 
675:3; 829:22, 46, 83 
ἐπειδάν, 198:49, 52; 203:3 
ἐπειδή, 198:59; 255:6; 
671:56; 764:3; 1130:3 
ἐπειδών, 401:7 
ἐπιών, 1309:14 
ἐπερχομένων, 829:40 
ἐπέρχονται, 829:27 
ἐπεξελθών, 675:15 
ἐπερωτήσῃ, 1130:13 
ἐπερωτῆσαι, 1130:12 
ἐπὶ, πιο; \ 68395) 12226; 
149:3; 248:2; 253:5; 
255:19; 258:18; 351:7, 
12; 355:7; 367:5; 589: 
8; 622:4, 5; 647:4; 
655:3; 671:32, 74; 675: 
5, 24, 26, 42; 716:5; 
742:73 743:13, 14; 763:5, 
9, 31; 803:6; 829:13, 14, 
33, 65, 67, 87; 848:7, 8; 
976:37; 1108:5; 1188:2; 
1189:1; 1266:2; 1364 °1,2; 
1506:1; 1574:1; 1585:1 
ἐπ᾿ 155:2; 201:7; 410:1; 
742:5; 977:1; 1417:8 
ἐφ᾽. 2582125. | 675222: 
63:1, 704: Ls) 820: 
20; τ: 1 LO3)97 
ἐπιγραφήν, 671:41; 1320:4 
ἐπέγραψε, 482:5 
ἐπιδημοῦσι, 829:33 
ἐπιδημοῦντες, 829:25 
ἐπιδήμιος, 114033 


ἐπιδιδομένων, 1348:5 
ἐπιδούς, 248:3 
ἐπιλάμψι, 45:11 
ἐπιλεγομένῃ, 888:5, 3 
ἐπιλησμοσύνην, 1220:4 
ἐπιμελείας, 261:9 
ἐπιμελήσονται, 74333 
ἐπιμέλεσθαι, 1364:7 
ἐπιμελεῖσθαι, 255:14 
ἐπιμεληθέντος, 811: 11 
ἐπιμελητοῦ, 213:5; σοῦ: ὃ 
ἐπιμελητής, 258:26 
ἐπινεῦσαι, 820: τό 
ἐπιξενώσεσι, 820: 8ο 
ἐπίορκος, 562:3 


ἐπισκόπου, 355:53; 710:7 


ἐπισκοπήν, 880:4 


ἐπεστάτει, τοῦ: 4, 34; 255:5 


ἐπιστάτου, 848:8 
ἐπιστρατεύσαντος, 675:11 
ἐπισυναχθέντων͵ 675: 1 
ἐπιταγήν, 369:4 
ἐπιτάγματα, 820:21 
ἐπιτελῶνται, 675: 40 
ἐπιτελεσθησόμενα, 56ς: 6 
ἐπιτήδια, 820: 52 
ἐπιτηδείων, 820: 44 
ἐπιτηδειότατα, 820: 74 
ἐπιτιμίας, 1347:3 
ἐπίτροποι, 820:34 


ἐπιτρόπων͵ 820: 5:5; L110:5 


ἐπετεύξατο, 46:12 
ἐπιφανῶς, 1131:4 
ἐπιφερομένην, 67 5:23 
ἐπιφύεσθαι, 829:45 
ἐπεχειροτονήθη, 675: 48 
ἐπιχθονίοις, 1172: 8 
ἐπιψηφίσῃ, 1130:13 
ἐπεψήφισεν, 671: το, 44 
ἐπιψηφίσαι, 1130:12 
ἐπωνομαζομένης, 804:2 
ἐπύ, 1172:2 
ἐπώνυμον, 401:2 
ἐπωνυμίην, 1413:2 
ἐργαζομένη, 477:4 
ἔργου, 367:20 
ἔργον, 700:6; 
1067:1 


308 


829:69; 


ἔργων, 670:14; 675:26 
ἔργα, 667:2 


ἔρεισμα, 362:3 


ἑρκεῖο, gI2:1 
ἕρκος, 362:9 


ἔρχεσθαι, 829:51 


HAO’, 1162:6 
ἔλθον, O76:41 
ἑλέσθαι, 675:40 
ἐλθόντα, 1419:11 
ἐλήλυθεν, 829: 65 
ἐληλυθέναι, 820: 83 
ἐσθίει, τοῦ: 4 
ἐσθίων, τοῦ: 4 
ἐσθλός, 909:4 
ἐσθλόν, 1162:1 
ἐσχάτην, 820: 83 
ἐσχάτοις, 362:7 
ἑταιρειάρχον, 351:4 
ἕτερος, 402:13; 400:2; 410: 
4;415:2,3;41τ8:3; 419:6; 
475:5;476:2; 502:2; 505: 
I; 740:6; 781:3; 1220:6 
ἕτερον, 370:2; 402:11; 
417:3; 426:3; 447:3; 
476:2; 776:5; 781:3; 
818: 5; 889:6; 1220:6 
ἑτέραν, 203:4; 258:23; 
671:64 
ἑτέρας, 386:9 
ἐτήτυμον, 1419:5 
ἔτι, 198:12; 215:3; 253:33 


305:1; 475:6; 498:3; 
590:4; 675:21; 35; 1172: 
13; 1220:2 


ἔτος, 370:22; 675:39; 802: 

5; 1108:5; 1110:6 

ἔτου, 276:1 

ἔτει, 112:6; 206:6; 208:3; 
209:3; 349:2; 400:4; 
402:6; 607:5; 668:1; 
670: 22; 801: 4; 829:75; 
872:5; 1109:7 

ἔτεα, 742:5 

ἐτῶν, 12:2; 182:3; 220:3; 
235°3; 237:2; 275-10, 
281:3; 344:2; 435:4; 
446:2; 469:6; 498:3; 


Ὑ» 


973:4; 993:2; 1007:3; 
IO51:3; 1082:3; 1162: 


32: 1290424 132052: 
1355:4 

ἐτέων, 403:3; 90927; 
1163:3 

ἔτους, 2:1: 12:1; 42:2; 
nage. το 63. T2020; 


130:7; 147:7; 186:3; 
210:4; 258:4; 261:1; 
262:2; 279:3; 281:10; 
363 :(37); 366:15 386: 1; 
388:8; 393:2; 394:3; 
399:8; 404:7; 406:1; 
407:6; 409:3; 416:2; 
421:10; 422:6; 427:3; 
434:7; 449:7; 450:6; 
453:6; 454:4; 458:2; 
46:5; 528:7; 550:3; 
558:1; 593:6; 596: 10; 
667:6; 675:49; 678:1; 
700:2; 746:10; 748:5; 
786:6; 787:9; 803:6; 
813:9; 814:5; 816:3; 
863:1; 9090:1 
é7m, 126:8; 165:5; 172:7; 
180:4; 198:17; 278:5; 
386:11; 394:2; 419:2; 
431:4; 458:1; 532:3; 
ὙΣΘΞΣ; 112 1:5; 1347:6 
ἔτεσι, 351:12; 355:8 
ἔτεσιν, 1205:2 
εὖ, 4:6; 855:17; 976:44 
εὐγενεστάτου, 803: 5 
εὐδοκίας, 351: ς 
εὐεργεσίας, 89:7 
εὐεργεσιῶν, 671:60, 73 
εὐεργετισσῃ, 421:7 
εὐεργετεῖν, 671:6, 26 
εὐεργετηθέντων, 682:22 
εὐεργέτης, 255:1; 1130:4; 
1369:11 
εὐεργέτην, 1080: 2 
evepyéres, 675:30 
εὐεργέταις, 976:30 
εὐεργέτιν, 1338:4; 1330:3 
εὔερρον, 1104:4 
εὐζώνους, 855:13 


INDEX 


εὐθαλεῖ, 1140: 1 

εὐθυνέσθων, 198: 38 

εὐκλέος, 1162:10 
εὐκλεᾶ, 1161:3, 7 

εὐλογημένην, 889: 4 

edpevéws, 363:2 

εὐνοίας, 373:11; 671:15, 353 
672:4; 675:43; 682:17; 
1130:6 
εὐνοίᾳ, 710:2 

εὐνοῦχος, τότ: ς 

εὐόδει, 215:6 

εὐόλβοιο, 1163:5 

εὔπαις, 1163:7 

εὔπλοια, τ28ς: 1 

εὑρέθη, 548:3 
εὑρέσθαι, 255:17 

εὐρύν͵ 1172:9 

εὐσεβείας, 253:7; 671:34; 
672:3 

εὐσεβῶν, 1109:6 

εὐσεβεστάτης, 3590:9 
εὐσεβεστάτου, 351:7 

εὐσχημόνως, 889:1 

εὐτελής, 666: 3 

εὐὔτυχεῖχε, 170:7; 247:6; 
280:1; 365:14; 369:13 

εὐτυχεστάτοις͵ 829:3; 60 

εὐτυχῶς, 1382:8; 1410:9; 
1412:8 

εὐφράνας, 1380:8 

εὐφραίνων, 262:15 
εὐφρανθῆτε, I110:2 

εὐφυῶς, 116:7 

εὐχαρίστησεν, 671:72 
εὐχαριστήσουσιν, 671:43 

εὐχαριστίας, 589:6 

εὐχάριστος, 671:5, 25 

εὐχῆς, I17O:1 
εὐχήν, 279:1;3 
1386:5; 1387:5 
εὐχαῖς, 37:5 

εὔχομαι, 1419:10 
εὔξατο, 4:5 
εὐχόμενοι, 829:16 
εὐξάμενος, 277:6; 1006:3 
εὐξάμενοι, 61:8 

εὖχος, 362:9 

309 


£20735 


93 


εὐψύχως, 675:31 
ἐφηβαρχοῦντος, 2:53; 53:6 
ἐφηβαρχοῦντος, 216:3 

ἐφήβαρχος, 261:6 
ἐφήβαρχον, 1:5 
ἐφηβεύσαντι, 406:9 
ἐφηβευσάντων, 1:3 
ἔφηβοι, 2:6; 53:9; 216:4 
ἐφήβων, 1:3 
ἐφήβους, 261:8 
épluepov, 1162:4 
ἐφύπερθε, 669: 5 
ἐχθρῶν, 116:4 
ἔχεις, 669:6 
ἔχει, 214:6; 370:3; 1140: 
4; 1172: 5 
εἶχον, 666: 2 
εἶχεν, 116:6; 675:27 
ἔχηι, 743:4 
ἔχοι, 4ο1: 5 
ἔχειν, 820: 18, 30 
ἔχων, 675:16 
ἔχουσα, 829:73 
ἔχουσαν, 671:42, 68 
ἕξετε, 370: 4 
ἔσχον, 562:5 
ἔσχε, 1103:4 
ἔσχες, 362: 3 
ἔχωσεν, 5:10 


ἔχεσθαι, 589:8 
ἕως, 46:9; 116:1; 198:55; 
702:2 


ζαθέῳ, 360:3 
ζῶσι, 287:6; 288:3; 308:12; 
387:8; 435:10 
ζώουσι, 1172:8 
fy, 1369: 12 
ζῶν; 78:7; 287:3; 305: 1: 
399:2; 406:3: 410:4; 
Ἄτδοτς 421:2; 4220. 15 
447:1; 454:3; 462:6; 
471:7; 488:5; 522:1; 
531:1; 740:4; 744:1; 
773:3) 781:2; 813:3; 
θ14.: 2: 073:8; £2202 
ζῶς, 434:2 


ζῶσα, 39:2; 130:5; 147:4: 


ἤ, 1130:13; 1369:1 


94 LEGAL TERMS IN MACEDONIAN INSCRIPTIONS AND THE N.T. 


θειότατον, 829:66; 1408: 1 


161:3; 220:4; 340:2; ἡγούμενοι, 829:34, 53 θειοτάτων, 222:6 
388:6; 402:2; 405:5; ἡγουμένων, 829:2, 55, 84 θειότητι, 829:15 
407:4; 400:2; 427:3; 79’, 362:9 θέλγων͵ 670:13 
431:6; 444:53 449:4; ἡγητῆρα, 112774 θεματικός, 374:2 
451:3; 459:1; 465:6; ἤθεσιν, 165:8 θεμελίους, 829: 40 
468:6; 475:4; 476:3; ἠϊθέων͵ 320:5 θέμις, 1218: 25; 121931 
490:33 500:1; 517:1; ἡμέρης, 1364:11 θεόγραφον, 349:1 
531:1; 628:2; 691:5 ἡμέρῃ, 1369:9 θεόθεν, 45:10 


ζῶσαν, 212:3; 745:8 
ζώσης, 475:6 
ζῶντι, 254:7; 466: 5; 494: 


ἡμέρᾳ, 278:3 
ἡμέρα, 803: 5 
ἡμέραν, 258: 22 


θεόπτῃ, 666: τ 
θεός, 1172:7 
θεοῦ τ28:2; 200:4; 220:7; 


43925:1 ἡμερῶν, 126:14 670: 22 
ζῶντες, 204:3; 414:2; ἡμέραις, 365:7 θεῷ, 198: 30; 284:151348: 
417:1; 426:2; 455:3; ἡμέρας, 51:5; 478: 2; 675: 2; 1373:3 


493:5; 813:7; 863:12 
ζῶντα, 82:4; 99:3 
ζώντων, 301:7; 445:5 


21; 820:206; 933:1 
ἥπερ, 829:12 
ἡρώϊσσα, gt7:1 


θεόν͵ 213:3; 1127:5 
θεάν, 1339:2 
θεῶν͵ 363 (3):2; 820: 6 5 


ζώσῃ, 300:3; “οδ:6; ἡρῷον, 429:2; 536:4 θεοῖς, 88:1 
430:5; 432:8; 694: ἥρως, 194:3 θεούς, 402:43 823:2 
14; 874:3 ἥρωος, 747:3}1326:1 θεοτόκου, 351:2 
ζησάσῃ, 309:4; 453143 ἥρωι, 150:2} 204:2; 435: θεοφιλῆ, 88ρ: 5 
458:1 1349375353374) 533:1; Serereiar, 820774 


θερμῶν, 829:73 
θεσπεσίαν, 4:2 
θεσπεσίηντε, 362:3 
Oevpol, 1130:2; 1141:4 


ὥήσας, 403:5; I131:5 

ἕήσασα, 172:10 

ζήσαντι, 431:3, 5; 53222; 
1347:5 


538: 25 784:3 
ἥρωα, 19:5; 681:2 
ἡρῶνα, 380: 2 
Hpwes, 71:3; 82:5; 215:5; 


ζήσαντα, 386: 10 870:2 θήκην, 110372 
ζήσαντας, 72:3 ἥρωσι, 23:4; 434:5 θην, 1305: 3 
ἔζησεν, 267:6 ἥρωας, 72:3 θῆλυ, τ218:1 
ἔζησα, 172:5 ἦχι, 5:9 Omens eae 


θανούσῃ, 165: 2 
θάνον, 563:4 

τεθνῶσι, 470: 5 
τεθνῶσιν, 254:5 


ζημίαν͵ 820: 56 
ζητῶν, 112:1 
fopepot, 360: 4 


θαλάμοισιν, 1172:11 
θανάτου, 1220:5 


ἐζωγράφηστι, 803:2 OdWev, 604: 4 τεθνώς, 909:6 
ζωγράφος, 112: 5 ἔθαψεν, 5:9; 1172:1 τεθνεώς, 307:15 
ζωγράφου, 803:6 ἔθαψε, 5:6 θράνος, 361:1 


θαφθείς, g09:8 
τέθαμμαι, 849:6 
θαυμαστός, 7ο1:2 


ζωγρίαι, 675:30 
ζωῆς, 74:6; 109:8; 169:5; 
398:5; 670:16; 889:2; 
1172:4 
ζωοποιοῦ͵ 880: 2 
ζωοῖς, 5:4; 329:17 
ζωοῖσι, 1419:1 
ζωοῖσιν, 401: 2 
ζῶσιν, 393:2; 483:4; 496: 
3; 824:3 


Opave, 362:1 
θρεπτή, 19:4; 292:4 
θρεπτῇ, 414:4; 

509-1; 773:2 
θρεπτοί͵ 386:5 
Operrots, 432:3 

Opdve, 362:10 
θυγάτηρ, 62:2; 427:1; 489: 
4; 690:1 
θυγατρός, 301:4; 34074 


485:2; 
ἐθεάσασθε, 612:3 
θεῖος, 351:15 355:1 
θείου, 258:8 
θεῖον, 1126:6 
θεῖα, 348:7; 829:60 
θείαν, 820: 57 
θείας, 829: 49, 64 
910 


INDEX 
θυγατρί, 27:3; 156:3; ἰδίας, 363:(3) 6; 675:35; 
182:2; 220:2; 231:5; 829: 30 
393:2; 422:3; 442:4; lwrlas, 829:45 
448:2; 452:3; 481:5; ἱερατικῆς, 590:4 
483:1; 404:1; 515:2; ἱερείας, 396:2 
527:5; 530:4; 565:2; lepeds,  128:2; 1224: 2; 
691:3; 746:4; 813:3; 1302:2 
867:7 ἱερέως, 61:9; 367:5; 763: 


Ovyarp’, 1172:1 
θυγατέρα, 3:6; 86:4; 218: 
55387: 2; 437:5; 748: 3; 
1338:3; 1340:1 
θυγατριδῇ, 483:2 
θυσίαις, 350:6; 563:5 


ἰατρείνη, 523: 1 
ἰατροῦ, 619:2; 713:2 
ἰδίου, 81:3 - 

Bly, 15:3; 16:6; 21:3; 
28:3; 29:3; 40:25 77:3; 
Base) 19@G652: 43:3; 
163:2; 286:8; 290:3; 
331:2; 388:4; 301:1; 
405:2; 444:2; 556:1; 
70S:2;) 843:25. 865:1; 
999: ΤΙ; 973:3 

ἰδίᾳ, 182:2; 185:2; 300: 
ΠΡΟΣ; 463:2; 481:5; 
485:2; 509:1; 520:2; 
679:3; 691:3; 862:2; 
973:5; 1130:5; 1414:2 

ἴδιον, 98:2; 363:(3) 6 

ἰδίην, 5:6 

ἰδίαν, 86:4; 99:1; 671:4, 
23; 675:9; 829:67 

ἰδίων, 16:4; 39:6; 55:6; 
ΤΟΙ 7) 14922; 212: 5: 
222°8- 5571τ: 2.18: 
260:5; 204:5; 300:6; 
380:3; 417:2; 429:3; 
536:5; 560:3; 675:14; 
811:8; 927:5; 1080:3; 
1085:4; 1069:2; 1087: 
1; 1089:3; 1135:3; 
1286: 2; 1588:3; 1580: 2 

eldlwy, 363:(5) 3 

ἰδίοις, 39:7; 62:6; 124:4; 
427°33; 435:10, 505:4; 
628:2; 829: 58 


LY 70428: 1848 57 
ἱεροκήρυκα, 671:10 
ἱεροποιούς, 671:18 

lep@, 1065:1 


ἱερῶι, 671:3, 9, 22 

ἱερᾷ, 106:2 

ἱερόν, 209:1; 671:6, 15, 
18. 26," 20,.' 30; .35; 
I130:10 


ἱερά, 976:30 
ἱεράν, 262:8, 24 
iepot, 976:36 
ἱερῶν, 371:7, 8 
ἱερούς, 829:58 


ἱερᾶς, 365: 5; 371:73 397: 
II 
ἱερωτάτῳ, 401:9; 411:6; 
415:4; 417:3; 419:0; 
426:5; 504:1; 829:14; 
929:13; 1220:8 


ἱερώτατον, 1412:2 
ἱεροσαλπίκτης, 749: 2 
ἱεροφάντῃ, 441:5 

ἱεροφάντην, 1412:6 
ἰέναι, 106: 1 
Inrpbs, 141724 
ἱκεσίαν͵ 829:15 

ἱκεσίαις, 806:8 
ἱκανῶς, 820: 82 
ἱκνοῦμαι, 403:10 
ἵνα, Ἀπ: ΤΟΣ 35234; 0.71: 5. 

25; 829:57, 61 
ἱππεύς, 419:1; 920:2 

ἱππέων, 675: 21 
immotatpos, 178:8 


ἱππικόν, 675: 39 
immotdrpov, 178:9; 363: 
(8) 2 


ἵππου, 1222:8 
ἵππον, ττό: 7 


511 


95 


ἵππων͵ 675:18, 30 
ἱρόν, 847:12; 1364:9 
loaplOpws, 361:6 
ἰσονομίαν, 670:9 
ἴσων, I411:11 
ἱστοριογράφος, 112:3 
ἴσχυσεν, 829:42, 84 
ἴσως, 111032 
ἴχνος, 909:3 


καθ᾽, 671:4, 23, 53, 59; 
976:45 
καθαίρεται, 370:18 
καθάπερ, 671:66; 
23; 976:63 
καθαρόν͵ 1364:3 
καθέδρα, 362:2 
καθέκαστα, 203:10 
καθιερεῖ, 112: 5 
καθιέρωσε, 931:3 
καθειμένους, 855:6 
καθώς, 456:3; 492:5 
καί, 1:8, | EGS eS) 21}; 
0: 25/102 3° τό: ἢ» 10:8; 
BED2 5s 7286: 2° 
34:2; 35:3; 36:4, 6; 
37253 38:25 39:25; 42:2; 
Ἄδ5ο, ATs) SOlL3;) ST: 
Ey ΑΘ 2:53 65 4582: 
60:3; 6; 61:2; 55102:6; 
74:4, 6; 77:4; 78:6; 
79:1; 86:3; 89:2; 106: 
By VAS ὙΤΏ As ταῦ, ΥΣ 
124385 125°35 ΤΟΤΕ; 
146:2; 147:3, 4, 6; 
ESOsise eLOOr Gs ro: 
163:1; 172:9; 173:4; 
179:6; 180:4; 181:3; 
182:1; 183:3; 186:2; 
195:3, 4; 198:3, 12, 
13, ΟΥΤΩΣ, 26 -190:32, 
41, 51, 57; 203:7, 13, 
£7: 2045.0 uh . ΟΡ 5" 
2001323) ΣΙ SA 212.:.35 
23.1.25. 5 ῈῸ ΟΡ 207" 
3: 8, 9, 14, 18, 20, 21, 
22, 23, 25, 36; 217:37, 
43, 49, 50, 51; 220:4; 


763:9, 


20 251: 255. 5. 27:.2:2; 
24335; 10; 24422, -3; 
248:5, 7; 252:1; 254: 
I, 3, 53 255:4, 7, 8, 
9, 13, 15, 17, 18; 255: 
21. 22; 2585320,) 22, 20; 
2622725103) 920322435 
281:5, 7, Ὁ; 28429; 
287:5, 3; 288:2; 280: 
1; 202:3,) 4; 294:2; 
295:3; 300:1, 4; 301: 
3, 5,6; 308:2, 5, 9, Io, 
11; 333:1; 338:3, 53 
340:3, 4; 346:3; 348: 
73 351:1, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8; 
351:9, 10, 12; 353:33 
355:1, 3, 6, 7, 8; 
361:3; 362:5, 6, 7; 
363:(7)8, (8)3, (9)5, 
(10}3; 564::.2; 5. 7: 85 
365:3, 4, 5, 9; 366:1; 
367:5, 10, 19; 369: 2, 4; 
370: 10, 22; 371:1, 2, 
6, 7,93 373°73 374:1, 
3) 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 14, 16; 
ΠΣ 26... 3755 1; 25 
375:0; .350:2; 950: 2; 
A; 8: Ὁ, 3572} 55°73 
388:5; 390:2; 394:1; 
395:1, 2; 396:1; 397: 
2; 309:2,5,14; 400:2; 
ου το; 40327.) 19; 
405:5; 406:4, 6; 407: 
35 400:2; 414:1; 2, 3; 
416:1; 419:3, 4: 421: 
4, 75 42332; 426:1; 
429:3; 430:90; 431:4; 
434:4, Ὁ; 435:6, 9; 
436:3, 4, 6, ὃ; 437:33 
439:6; 442:5, 7; 443:1; 
444:2, 5; 445:4; 446: 
4; 449:4, 8; 450:2, 4; 
451:2; 454:33 455:15 
ΘΟΕ. 450213, 201: 
4; 462:1, 5; 464:4; 
465: 3, 6; 466: 2; 470:1, 
35471:63 472:55475:2; 
476:3; 479:2, 4; 480: 


2, 3; 481:3; . 482:1; 
483:2, 3; 484:3; 486: 
I, 2; 488:4; 403:5, 2; 
494:2, 3; 405:3; 496: 
I, 3; 408:6; 509:1; 
ΘΙ; SUSE as 25 5 
523:3; 524:1, 2; 531:1; 
535:2; 536:6; 547:1, 
2; 555:1; 558:2, 3; 
580:3, 9; 500:1; 502: 
45 593:33 595:3; 610:2; 
625:1, 7; 629:5; 630:3; 
631:4; 636:3; 643:2; 
647:6, 7; 649: 3; 650:3; 
652:6, 8; 653:6; 655:6; 
656:3; 657:4; 660:5; 
661:4; 662:6; 663:4, 
ἤν |GOA 255107033576) 
9, 13, 14, 16, 19, 21; 
671:1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 
ΤΟ ΤΑ C5, 205 2250235 
28: 20. 25; 30. 92} 94, 
35, 36, 37, 40, 42,.46, 
48, 50, 51, 52, 55, 62, 
65, 66, 69, 70, 71, 74, 
75; 672:3, 4; 675:1, 
4, 6, 10, 13, 14, 15, 17, 
18. 22. 20. eo. 20.) 30] 
31, 33, 34; 35» 36, 37; 
38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 
44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49; 
676:1, 25) 677:1, 13; 
678231, 7; 82:20. 
685: 13 687215 688:2; 
689:4; 691:5; 695:1; 
696:1, 3; 702:3; 703: 
3; 708:2; 740:3; 742: 
3, 7,9, 12, 15, τό, 17; 
743:2, 6, 14; 744:3; 
745:3, 73 740:11; 747: 
35 748:1, 2; 749:3; 
750:1; 752:1; 763:5, 
9; 10, II, 12, 13, 14, 
D5 18, 320. ΣΝ ie 2gnese 
24, 26, 27, 29, 30; 
764:4; 769:4, 5, 9; 
773:2, 3, 6; 776:1; 
781:2, 4; 787:9; 801: 
312 


96 LEGAL TERMS IN MACEDONIAN INSCRIPTIONS AND THE N.T. 


I, 2, 5; 802:1, 35 
803:1,.2, 14, δ; “Sonia 
2, 3; 806:2, 4, 7, 8; 
811:2, (45) δ᾽. Or2a0e3 
$13:6; 815733) δὅ:θ6: 1, 
2, 4; ϑ8:18:2; VS2nnge 
826:2, 4, 6; 829:10, 
II, 12, 13, 14, 15, 18, 
20, 21, 23, 26, 28, 30, 
31, 32, 34, 39, 49, 41, 
43, 47, 50, 55, 50, 58, 
62, 68, 72, 73: 74, 75» 
76, 80, 82, 84; 843:3, 
4; 845:2; 847:2, 5, 
6, 8, 13, 22; 848:3, 4; 
855:2, 6; 862:2; 863: 
5, 11; 872:3, 4) +53 
874:3; 8809:5; 906:2; 
909:7; 912:3; 929:7, 
9; 931:2; 933:2; 973: 
4; 976:4, 8, 16, 24, 
25; 26, 27) 29; 30, 32, 
37, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 
49, 51, 52, 59, 62; 
077:8, 10, 12; ἘΘΥΒ: 2) 
ΙΟΙ4:4:; τοῦτ 5, ἡ 
ΤΟΙ: 5; » TOSAes namo. 
TOGA? 1; 32; aos snes 
1086: 2; 1108:3; I109Q: 
5; 10:1, 2, 4, 5» 7; 
1130:4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 
TO, 13, 16s) Deseo: 
1122:1, 2) ΠΣΞΑΣ ΩΝ 
1136:5; 1140:4; ΣΤΑ͂Τ: 
2: LOZ" 75) eat Ons 
117235, (TAs reese. 
E2LS: 1; Π22Ο: ΖΡ 
8: Ιλ: eae 
ΤΟΙ 1; 1221:2; 1220: 
2,4; 1348:2, 3; 1364: 
7, το; 1369:7, 8, 12, 
20; ‘1382265 ἼΤ᾽ 
1386:2; 1408:1; 1411: 
5,9; 1414:1; 1410:4. 
5, 10 


καιρῶι, 675:10 
καιροῖς, 829: 11, 60 
καιρούς, 829:22; 1109:3 


κακῶν, 398:8 
καλανδῶν͵, 258:16; 365:13 
ἐκάλεσαν, 308: Β΄, 2 
καλέσαι, 255:18; 976:37, 
62 
ἐκλήθην, 16:1 
κάλλιπες, 498: 5 
κάλλει, 670:7 
κάλλους, 670:13 
καλλίῤῥοον, 1110: 2 
καλλίστῳ, 829:71 
καλλίστηι͵ 675:33 
καλός, 675:4; 1388:1, 4 
καλῆς, 353:4 
καλῶν, 398:7 
καλούς, 112:4 
καλῶς, 399:4; 829:72 
κἄμ᾽, 561:30 
Kapdtwv, 180: 2 
κἄν, 35335 
κανδιδάτος, 1013: 2 
κανονικῆς, 030: 5 
ἐκαρπίσατο, 4:4 
καρύων, 262:19 
κασιγνήτης, οορ:9 
καστροφύλακος, 592:7 
κατὰ, τι; 128:3; 
2ο το: 220:6; 
ΕΘ: ΤΙ; 12, 18; 
348:4; 365:8; 360:4; 
503:8; 675:5, 11; 74274, 
ΔΑ: δο2ι 5; 820:22, 25; 
880: 5; 11ο9:3; 1130:3 
κατ. 7245 ττθι 3: 203: 55 
2072255 255252, 20, 245 
675:9, 39; 116123; 
r181:1 
καταβαλόντες, 829:32 
κατήγαγον, 173:1 
καταδέχηται, 847:18 
καταδίκης, 1130:16 
κατεκοσμήθη, 806:3 
κατέλιπεν, 562:9 
καταλιμπάνοντες, O23:30 
κατέλυσε, 403:12 
καταμένοντες, 923: 26 
καταναγκάζειν, 829:51 
καταπλήττων͵ 670:14 


200: 1 
256:2 
281 :6; 


INDEX 


κατασκεύασεν͵ 429:2; 1220:2 
κατασκευάσασα, 62:7 
κατασκεύασμα, 682:13 

καταστήσαντας, 1369: 20 

κατατεθῇ, 418:3 
κατάθητε, 470:4 
καταθῆται, 409:3; 447:3 
kaTadévat, 976:35 
κατατεθῆνε, 475:06 
καταθέντον, 976:36 
κατέθηκε, 1413:1 
κατέθηκεν, 275: 5 
κατατεθῆναι, 401:8; 447:2 
καταθέσθαι, 401:8; 413:3; 

26:3. ΘΙ: 9: ΘΟ. 12; 
1220:6 

κατέφυγον, 829:86 

κατιφθίμενον, 5:2 
καταφθίμενον, 694:1 
καταφθιμένους, 160:4 

καταφρονοῦντες, 829: 46 

κατεῖδε, 1162:4 

κατεπείγουσιν, 829: 31 

κατεληλύθημεν, 829: 42 

κατέχειν, 855:7 
κατέχειν, 217:19, 28, 30 
κατεχόμενοι, 1L1O:1 

κατοικεῖσθαι, 829: 11 

κατωλιγωρήθη, 820: 85 

κατοχάς, 217:10 

καυχάστω, 562:4 

κέ, δ᾽) } 22 2:3, 51.020:.2 

κεδνῷ, ΙΔΤΟῚῚ 

κέλευσιν, 229:6 

κελεύει, 668:6 
ἐκέλευσεν, 128:3 
ἐκέλευσαν, 829:38, 54 
κελεύσῃς, 829:49, 60 

κεῖμαι, 5:14; 172:12; 308: 
ἢ; 403:1; 561:7; 562:1; 
789:1; 909: 5 
κεῖσαι, 155:2; 180:5 
κεῖσθαι, 829:19 
κειμένη, 829:72 
κεῖται, το: 

κέκευθεν, ττό2:2 

κεφαλαίου, 258:23 

κεφαλαττικοῦ, το53:6 

919 


97 


κεφαλή, 670:11 
κηλίδος, 670: 4 
κῆπον, 1364:5 
κήρ, 76:4 
κηρυχθείς, τ360: 11 
κινδυνεύομεν, 820:47 
κίνδυνον, 675: 27 
éxlyavev, 1172:13 
κείονες, 272:8 
κεκλωσμένον, 401:6 
κλεινόν, 1127: 5 
κλέος, 670: 17 
κλέει, 625:3 
κληρονομία, 262:27 
κληρονόμος, 180:7 
κληρονόμων, 1220: 4 
κληρονόμοις, 412: 5 
κληρονόμους, 402:2 
κλῆρον, 334:1; 880: 5 
κλήροις, 214:3 
κλήσιας, 362: ὃ 
κεκληρονόμηκα. 477:3 
ἐκληρούχησεν, γ653:Ὸ 
κλίναντα, 1127:1 
κλυτόν, 1122:3 
γναφέος, 34:1 
κοιμηθῇ, 402: 8 
κοιμητηρίῳ, 889: 7 
κοινῆς, 670: 19 
κοινοῦ, 812:7; 1220: 5 
κοινῷ, 18ο: 5; 247:3 
κοινῇ, 1130: 5 
κοινῆι, 671:4, 23 
κοινόν, 675:7; 
ὅ8ο:1 
κοινά, 63:9 
κοινὸ, 976:47 
18ο:2; 
420:2, 5 
κομμερκίων, 634:3; 636:2 
κόπου, 803:2 
Kérwv, 143:5;412:3; 417: 
2; 426:3; 462:5 
κοράσιον, 363:(3) 4 
κορασίου, 126:13 
κορεσθῆτε, LI1O:1 
κόρης, 353:1 
κοσμοῦμαι, 184: 4 


742:12; 


κοινῶν, 4155 3: 


98 LEGAL TERMS IN MACEDONIAN INSCRIPTIONS AND THE N.T. 


κοσμίους, 112:4 
κοσμοπόλει, 1132: 2 
κόσμον, 1161:7 
κουμερκιάριος, 
1013:3 
κουμερκιαρίῳ, 707: 3 
κούρα, 329:1 
κουριδίη, 76:6 
κραταιοῦ, 351:6 
κραταιᾶς, 592:3 
κρατεῖν, 1130:12 
ἐκράτησεν, 675:17 
κρατίστου, 611:4 
κρατίστης, 365:8; 369:7 
κρατίστῳ, 412:1 
κράτιστον, 927:3; 1086:1 
κρεοφυλάκιον, O75:4 
κρῖμα, τοῦ: 4 
κέκρικε, 67:5: 24 
κριπίδων, 801: 1 
κριτοῦ, 655:3 
κριτῇ, 653:5; 661:3; 662: 
4; 663:5; 708:2 
κρηπίδα, 362:3 
κρῦψε, 214:2 
κρυφθείς, 403: 2 
κεκτήμεθα, 829:17 
κεκτῆσθαι, 763:13, 21 
ἐκτησάμην, 403:6 
κτείνας, 562:6 
κτήσει, 763:31 
κτησίο, g12:4 
κτίσεως͵ 70033 
κτίσειε, 360: 1 
κτίστης, 109:9 
κτίτορος, 355:7 
κτιτόρων͵ 872:4 
κυβερνήτου, 1385:4 
κῦδος, 4:4; 329:17 
κύκλου, 670: 2 
κυνήγια, 56ς:6, 12; 360: 
5, 11 
κυρίας, 592:4 
κυρᾶς, 592:5 
κυριακῷ, 447:3 
κυριεύειν, 590:3 
ἐκυρίευσεν, 675:18, 30 


1012: 2; 


κυρίου, 668:4; 801:3, 4; 
803:3; 804:4; III074 
κυροῦ, 799: 3 


κυρίῳ, 109:1; 147:2; 
451:2 

κύριε, 660:1; 708:1; 
ΙΟΙ4:1 


κυρίων, 125:5 

κυρίοις, 763:12 

κωλύειν, 198:38'; 217:37 

κωλυόντων, 198: 37 
κωμαρχῶν, 335:8 
κώμη, 829:70 

κώμης, 829: 24, 77 

κώμῃ, 829:18 

κώμην, 829:27, 81 

κώμας, 829:12, 51 


λαχεῖν, 4:6 
λαγόνων, 694:6 
λάκων, 669:6 
Aadty, 1172:8 
λήψονται, 855:12 
ἔλαβεν, 763:17 
λάβωμεν, 352:5 
λαβεῖν, 258: 20 
λαβών, 353:1; 403: Γ΄, 5 
λαβόντες, 855:8 
λαμπρά, 670:18 
λαμπροτάτου, 221: 3 
λαμπρότηα, 787:8 
λαμπρῶς, 670:7; 806: 2 
λατομίας, 367:3 
Aarplwy, 362:4 
λάτριν, 787:6 
λάχος, 561:6 
λέγοσι, 976:60 
Alas, 371:6 
λειοτάτας, 1369:18 
λιπών, 1162:8 
λείψανα, 362:9 
λειπόμενος, 498: 3 
λειφθείς, 5:7 
λειτουργίαις, 247:2; 1131:3 
λειτουργείτωσαν, 247:1 
λέκτρων͵ 117233 
λεών, 360:6 
λήγει, 403: 11 
314 


λήθη, 17321; 1419:12 
ληνόν͵ 402:5; 409:1; 419: 
5; 426: 2; 475:5; 506:4; 
522:23; 740:2, 5 
ληνήν, 427:1 
λίαν, 806:3 
λιθίνης, 976: 37 
λιθίνηι, 256:6; 976:35 
λιθίνην, 682:18; 847:6 
λίθου, 1172:2 
λίθῳ, 184:5 
λίθον, 1369: τό 
λίθων, ττό: 4 
λιμένος, 976: 20 
λιποῦσα, 710:3 
λίτραν, 929:15 
λογιεῖται, 855:2 
λόγου, 666: 5 
λόγε, 352:4; 353:2 
λόγων, 670:13 
λοιμικῆς, 625:4 
λοιποῦ, 880: 6 
λοιποί, 829:47; ο76: 28 
λοιπῶν, 370:17 
λοιπούς, 829:36 
λοιπά, 217:28; 820:21, 59 
λουτροῦ, 46:12 
λούσαντα, 51:4 
dAvypdy, 1172:10 
λυκάβαντα, 410:1 
λυκάβαντας͵ 360:5 
λυπήσας, 16:3 
λελύπημαι, 16:4 
λύπην, 403: Δ΄, 4 
λύσιος, 1130:12 
λύσιν, 352: 5; 787:3, 9 
λώου, 435:7 


μακάρεσσι, 4:5 
μακαρίου, 802:4 

μακάριον, 1140: 4 
μάλα, 198:7 

μάλ᾽, 401:3 
μᾶλλον, 855:8 
μαρμάρινον, τ348:4 
μάρτυρα, 362:5; 643:2; 

666:5 

μάρτυρες, 126: 21 

μαρτύρων, 37:7 


μαρτυρίαν, 682:16 

μαγίστρῳ, 653:3; 663:3 

μαστιγώσαντα, 1364:6 

μάτρωνα, 1419:2 

μάτηρ, 1163:7 

μάχης, 403: 5 
μάχηι, 675:28 

μέγα, 362:9 

μεγαλομάρτυρος, 803:1 
μεγαλομαρτύρων, 833:3 

μεγάλως͵ 258:10 

μέγας, 396:12; 1135:2 
μεγάλου, 351:4 
μεγάλης, 880: 2 
μεγάλας͵ 671:3, 22 

μεγίστου, 371:4; 625:3 
peyloory, 284:2; 335:2 
μέγιστον, 333:1 
μεγίστην, 820: 56 
μεγίστων, 670:15 

μεδίμνων͵ τοϑ: 36 

μειλίων, 820: 24 

μείω, 83:3 

εἱμαρτήν, 4:5 

ἠμέλησεν, 2:8: ΤΙ 

μέλλων, τοῦ: 1 

Merv, 14:1; 116:13 ΓἼΟΒ:22; 
208:2: 360:2; 370:19; 
671:29, 30, 62; 675:6; 
829:20, 35, 42, 72, 75; 
976:63; 977:11 

μένειν 675: 26; 855:10 
μείναντες, 829:58 

μέρος͵ 548:2; 117233 

μερόπεσσι͵ 76:7 

μέσον͵ 829:19 

ΜΕΤ S33: 37:3; 126:6; 
195 :3; 198:51, 53; 21515 


262-18; 374:3; 401-8; 
403:16; 409:3; 410:4; 
418:3; ᾿445:5; 447:2; 
475:6; 499:4; 675:13, 


14; 740:4; 742:21; 776: 
4; 783:3; 807:3; 829:85; 


976:30, 42; 1130:15; 

1172:7 

ner’, 359:1; 675:20, 22, 
43 

med’, 675:26 


INDEX 


μετακινῆσαι, 4O1:9 
μετάλλοις, 869:4 
μεταπέμψασθαι, 675:25 
μέτεστιν, 1130:9 
μετεῖναι, 1130:9, 16 
μετέχεις, 670:4 
μετασχουσῶν, T411:10 
μετόπισθε, 76:3 
μέτοχος, 398:8 
μέτρα, 403:26 
μετράσιν, 295:6 
μετρήσει, 855:3 
μέχρι, 125:11 
μέχρις, 820: 84 
μή, τοϑ: 24; 217:38; 396:19; 
675:25; 742:11, 19; 810: 
1; 829:36, 50, 54; 889:6; 
1141:5; 1369:13 
μηδέ, 198:22; 742:20; 820: 
51, 52; 976:46; 1369:13 
μηδείς, 1369:13 
μηδέν, 198:15, 56 
μηδενί, 1130:12 
μηδένα, 16:3 
μηδεμίαν, 829: 32 
μηθέν, 1412:7 
μηκέτι, 562:4; 829:38 
μημόριον, 363 (7):1, (8):1, 
(9):1, (το): τ 
μηνός, 147:7; 210:4; 242:6; 
258:4; 596:10; 781:5; 
786:8; 803:5 
μηνί, 613:8; 614:4; 615: 
3; 617:3; 618:3, 7; 
619:3; 711:4; 714:3; 
715:5, 8; 716:3; 717: 
3, 7; 718:3; 746:10; 
1108:4 
μῆνες, 109:7; 478:2 
μηνῶν, 344:2 
μῆνας, 165:6; 180:4; 498: 
3; 933:1 
μηνή, 278:2; 615:7; 616:7; 
617:9 
pnoly, 1163:4 
μήτε, 198:21; 258:22, 24; 
398: 7; 403:23, 24; 1130: 
12; 1369:7 
315 


99 


μήτηρ, 275:0; 423:2; 689:4 
μητρί, 300:5; 3997; 
407:3; 416:1; 430:6; 
436:2; 459:1; 474:1; 
486:3; 555:2; 679:4; 
688329 77763") διθ:2; 
888: 2; 1051:6; 1082:6; 
1414:2 
μητέρα, 5:6; 745:8; 1410: 
SrA pins 
μητέρ᾽, 1172:10 
μητέραν͵ 403: 10 
μητρόπολις, 27392 
μητροπόλεως, 55:4 
μητροπολίτου, 668: 3 
μητροπολίτης, 36:1 
μηχανῇ, 847:20 
μικρός, 306: 2 
uly, 76:5 
μισθόν, 13690:4 
μίτοις, 308: ς 
μνᾶς, 1369:10 
μνησθείς, 5:10 
μνείας, 14:5; 15:4}16:6; 28: 
4;29:7;30:5;40:3;43:3; 
44:5; 77:6; 70:2; 80:2; 


81:4; 85:5; 95:4; 97:4; 
ΤΟΟΣ 36) ΤΌΣ: 142:0᾽ 
146:3; 156:4; 158:4; 
159:4; 160:3; 174:6; 
175:6; 176:5; 177333 
T7810; | 170273 VIST:4: 
18222: | 184:65)- 18553; 
186:3; 19422; 210:2; 
238:8; 290:4; 294:5; 
300:6; 310:4; 386:6; 
394:35 397:33 399:7; 
407:4; 410:3; 413:2; 
432:5; 433:4; 463:5; 
468:10; 471:5; 473:4; 
477:2; 487:7; 489:6; 
499:3; 508:2; 517:2; 
518:2; 527:6; 529:7; 
§30:5; 556:2; §65:3; 
679:4; 691:4; 694:15; 
696:4; 744:5; 745:95 
776:3; 783:8; 867:8; 
973:0; 1174:4 


100 LEGAL TERMS IN 


welas, 305:4; 396:4; 
409:2; 412:3; 430:6; 
475:4; 476:3; 478:1; 
514:3; 53:8; 537:3; 
695:5 

μνῆμα, 205:3; 434:0; 472: 

43 77333 
μνημεῖον, 
744:2 
μνημείου, 562:8 
μνήμης, 8:2; 10:5; 12:73 
27:4; 31:2; 30:4; 73:5) 
82:3; 93:2; 96:3; 98:3; 


279:4; 338:6; 


0: 2... E2235) ἜΘΟΣ: 2» 
147:3; 150:3; τόό:4; 
τοῖν 2205... 1222-0; 
22:2 ὩΣ gen (eae 40 
25427) 202: νι 20430" 
288:45, 30058; 30223; 
305:2; 308:13; 331:3; 
341:3; 363:4; 388:6; 
390:3; 391:2; 400:5; 
403:17; 404:6; 405:3; 
406:10; 408:9; 414:4; 
421:8; 422:4; 423:4; 
428:2; 435:7; 436:7; 
439:7;:; 443:5;); 444:4; 
445:6;); 449:5; 453:5; 
465:5; 479:6; 480:4; 
481:6; 484:4; 485:2; 
486:3; 515:2; 528:5; 
534:5; 536:4; 540:4; 
547:3;); 555:2;}; 5095:5) 
596:3; 627:2; 685:4; 
686:4; 687:3; 692:6; 
746:9; 748:4; 749:10; 
750:3; 765:3; 771:3; 
786:3; 813:3; 814:14; 
θεῖο; / SxrO20s) 807535 
843:7; 863:9; 865:1; 
O1O+23) ΤΟΝ"; 1062575 


I1172:15; 1347:6; 1414:2 
μνημόσινον, 803:4 
μνημοσύνης, 165:3; 482:4 
μνημόσυνον, 209: 2 
μοῖραν, 5:3; 1172:7 

μοῖρ᾽, 1172:13 

μοιρῶν, 1172:4 


MACEDONIAN 


μοιρωμμήτον, T140:5 
μοναχός, 624:1; 806:9 
μοναχοῦ, 799:7; 801:5; 
803:6; 872:6 
μοναχοῖς, 209:3 
μονῆς, 806:5; 872:2 
μονογόνου, 702:2 
μονομαχίαι, 365:13 
μόνος, 715:2 
μόνον, 5:4; 247:1; 810:1; 
829:73 
μόνην, 1411:8 
μόνα, 217:26; 1162:2 
μόνοις, 217: 32 
μόρον, 1419:6 
μόρσιπον, 329:8 
μουσικῷ, 224:2 
μόχθοῳ, 787: 3 
μύρεται, 1419: 4 
μυρίαισι, 198:38 
μυστηρίων, 106: 3 
μύσται, 306: 11 


vads, 200:1; 3511; 701:2; 
SOLS Ts 180231051 003 1, 5 
vaby, 112:1, 6; 380:2 

vats, 198:41 

ναύτου, 262:8 

vexpov, 666:4 

νέκυς, QOQ:5 

ἔνειμεν, 1162:10 

νέος, 5:7; 107:2 
véov, 802:6 
véov, 681: 2 
véot, 51:1; 811:1; 1084:1 

νεώτερον, 50:2 

veoupy6v, 787:6 

νεωκόρος, 975: 2 

vewply, 198: 53 

νήμασι, AO1:7 

νήσου, 668:4 

ἐνίκησε, 675:28 

νίννῃ, 416: 2 
νίνην͵ 415:3 

νισόμενον, 1161: 2 

vonoat, 694:9 

νόθον, 116: 2 

316 


INSCRIPTIONS AND THE N.T. 


νόμον, 349: 2 
νόμους, 666: 2 

vovowy, 257:6 

νυμφείου, 17333 

νύμφη, τότ: 1 

νυμφοκόμοις, ΤΙ 72:11 

νῦν, τοῦ: 12; 353:4; 580:6; 
675:44; 806:0; 976:52 
60 


ξενίας, 829: 28, 32, 43 
ξενίαν, 820: 52, 54 
ξυνῶς, 401:6 


ὄγδοον, 566: 6 
ὀγῖνος, 126:14 
ὅδε, 523:1 
65’, 1140:2 
ὁδόν͵ 829: 50 
ὁδούς, 247:3; 829:31 
ὀδυρόμενοι, 329: 10 
οἰκεῖον, 671: 30 
οἰκείων, 829:56 
οἰκείως, 671:68 
οἰκοῦμεν, 829:17 
olkoyevés, 363 (3):7 
οἰκοδομιστηρίων, 742:10 
οἴκῳ, 257:5 
οἶκον, 363(11):1; 418:2; 
682:15; 702:1; 719:4 
οἰκτρῷ, 363:6 
οἴμοι, 67033 
ola, 45:8; 670:20 
οἴχῃ, 670:16 
οἰχομένοιο, 45:5 
οἰχομένου, 694: τὸ 
οἰχομένων, 205: τό 
οἰωνοσκόπος, 1347:2 
ὀλιγαρχίῃς, 1369:3 
ὀλίγον, 308: 3 
ὀλοή, 76:4 
ὅλης, 51:4 
ὁλοχάρις, 625:6 
ὁμαιμοσι, 403:2 
ὀμνύῃ, 1369:15 
ὀμόσαι, 1369:19 
ὁμοζύγῳ, 352:3 
ὁμοίως, 820:31 


ὁμολογῶσιν, 198: 23 

ὄναρ, 7:43 213:5 

ὄνομα, 112:2, 3; 306:2 
ὄνομ᾽, 307:5 
ὀνόματος, 126:1 
ὀνόματι, 126:7; 126:20; 

363(3):5; 829:44 

ὅπερ, 829: 47 

ὅπλων, 675:30 

ὁπόθεν, 855:5 

bros, 976: 46 

ὅπως, 255:16; 390:9; 401: 5; 
671:54, 66; γ43:4; 820: 
49 

ὁρῶμεν, 353:5 
ἴδης, 361: ὃ 
ἐδουσα, 184:4 

ὀρεινοί, 60: 11 

ὁρισμῷ, 592: 2 

opxifw, 889:3 

ὁρκισμόν͵ 348:4 

ὅρκος, 203:14; 1369:13 
ὅρκον, 1369:15, 10 

ὁρμωμένου, 801:3 

ὄρνιν, 262:13, 18 

ὅρος, 1016: 1 
ὀρων͵ 829:72 

ὅρπηξ, 670:21 

ὀρφανικόν͵ 773:5 

ὀρφανῶν, 241:3; 209:4 

ὁσίων, 214:4 

ὅταν, 671: τι; 675:39 

One 255:13; 258:0; 4023: 
1; 471:2; 71:42; 742: 
11; 820:53; 976:8, 40, 
41, 44, 48, 61; 977: 15; 
1369:14 
ὅτ᾽, 214:6; 361:4 

οὐ, 46:5; 397:10; 670:4; 
829: 73; 855:12; 1218: 2,3 

οὐδέ, 45:6; 258:10; 498:7; 
ὍΣΩΙ 1140253, F258: 2° 
12Ig:1 
οὐδ᾽, 370:123; I140:5 

οὐδείς, 829: 43 
οὐδενός, 370: 11 
οὐδένα, 675:27 

οὐκ, 217:18; 362:8; 307:9; 
976:9 


INDEX 


οὐκέτι, 45:5; 829: 46 

οὖν͵ 671:5; 8290:46; 889:3 

οὕνεκα, 1419:5 

οὔνομα, 5:13 

οὔποτ᾽, 361:8 

οὔπω, 498: 2 

οὐρανόν, 612:2, 3, 4 

obre, 829:43, 445 1417:7 
οὔτ᾽, 1417:8 

οὔτι, 1162:4 

oUTos, 351:1; 612:2; 803:5; 
872213 1100:1; 1220:7 
τούτου, 363(10):3; 829: 

68 

τοῦτο, 401:2; 536:4 
τούτων͵ 742:12 

οὕτως, 370:2; 612:3 

οὐχ, 477:2; 562:3; 1163:1 

οὐχί, 5:4; 1163:8 

ὄφρα, 1419:12 

ὀφείλειν, 1364:8, 9, τὸ 

ὄχλους, 675:26 


mayyevérns, 360:1 
παγγονίῃ, 360:2 
πάθους, 670: 20 
παιδίον, 126: 19 
πεδίον͵ 126:7 
πεδίου, 220:3 
παιδίῳ, 817:3 
παιδαγωγῷ, 73:3 
παιδίσκης, 363(3):6 
mais, 258:18; 404:5; 1223:3 
παιδός, 214:6 
παιδί, 752:1 
παῖδα, 5:12; 1319:5 
παῖδες, 1419:5 
παίδων, 671:12 
πεδίων, 36:7 
παῖδας͵ 847:6; 1130:7 
παιωνίζεται, 1218:3 
πάλης, 397: 10 
πάλιν͵, 1127721 
πάλλαι, 829: 20 
πάμπαν, 320:5 
mavaylou, 702: 3 
παναγιωτάτον, 3:1: 11; 
668: 3 


317 


101 


πανάριστος, 4:3 
πανδημεί, 51:5 
πανδεμεί, 976: 41 
πανδήμους, 563:5 
πανευσεβεστάτου, 593:3 
πανευτυχεστάτου, 355:3 
πανήγυρις, 820:75 
πανηγύρεως, 829:24, 25 
πανιερωτάτου, 355:5 
πανοσιωτάτων, 799: 5 
πάνσεπτος, 351:1; 355:13 
802:1 
πανσέπτου, 700: 5 
πανσόφως, 349:2 
πάντοτε, 308:2 
πανυπεραγίου, 3ςτ: 2 
πάντως͵ ὃςς: 7 
πανύστατα, 403: 5 
παπαί͵ 625:7 
πάππος, 763:8 
πάππον, γ745:3 
παρά, 5:11; 126:4; 198:50; 
255:17; 355:53 671:57, 
64, 75; 75:24, 41; 682:3, 
4; 193) 703 16; $209: 2; 
848:1; 889:2; 976:1, 
AT 52s sLEZOs TR" 61300 1T 
map’, 208: 5; 353:5; 580: 5 
παραγείνονται, 820:31 
παραγενομένων, 682:9 
παραδοῦναι, 675:34 
παραιτίον, 675:44 
παρακαλέσουσιν͵ 675:43 
παρακμήν, 116:6 
παράκοιτιν, 4:5 
παρέλαβεν, 258: 26 
παραμονῆς, 1371:1 
παραπέμψῃ, 180:8 
παραπέμψαι, 855:15 
παραπυλίδι, 548:4 
παραπωλήσας, 248:4 
παρασιούργου, 355:4 
παρετάξατο, 675:28 
παραταξαμένου, 675:13 
παραχωροῦνες, 217:14 
πάρεδρον, 1162:5 
παρών, 799:1, 4 
παρόντα, 668: 2 


102 LEGAL TERMS IN MACEDONIAN INSCRIPTIONS AND THE N.T. 


παρόντι͵ 675:10 
παρούσης, 829:66 
παροῦσα, 592:1 
παρεμβολῆι, 675:27 
παρενβολήν, 675:20 
mapééots, 806:7 
πάρελε, 363: 2 
παρελθόντος, 671:50 
παρέχηι, 1304:7 
παρέχειν, 303:6; 590:5; 
829: 28, 31, 53, 59 
παρέχοντα, 255:8 
παρέχεσθαι, 820: 54 
παρέσχηται, 671:3, 22 
παροδεία, 341:5 
παροδεῖτα, 74:12; 83:4; 
403: 28 
mapodetr’, 909: 2 
mapodtre, 169:9 
παροδεῖτε, 79:3 
mapodéirat, 16:7; 74:12 
παροδίτες ,169:7 
πάρος, 1163:7 
παροχῆς, 829: 44 


was, 106: 2 

πάσης, 241:2; 351:12; 
359:3; 746:7; 749: 
GIB) ame POR ern eet se 7. 
ΤΥ 7 

πᾶσαν͵ ς80:7 

πάντα, 109:8; 360:6; 


1130:12; 1309:15 
πάντ᾽, 403:13 
πάντες, 10:7 
πάντων, I130:9 
πᾶσι, 403:4; 1589:2 


πᾶσιν; 353:5; 4098:2; 
δη0: 125, O75 275) 0ΘΤΖΣ 
8: 1172:8 

πάντας, 402:3; 580:0; 


670:13; 1369:19 
πάσας, 100: 2 
παστάδος, 173:4 
παστόν͵ 1162:5 
παστῶν, 1161: 
παστοῖς, 1417:8 
πάσχειν, 847:7 


πατήρ, 230:4; 275:6, 7; 
329:11; 748:4; 763:9; 
1413:1 


πάτερ, 1417:11 
πταηρός, 5:7, 12: 178: 5; 
908: Ὁ. 208393) 371: 58 
404:4; 1163:5 
πατρί, 159: 4; τό3:3; 300: 
3; 302:2; 366:7; 430: 
3;444:3; 461: 5; 482:3; 
480:5; 490:2; 506:2; 
508: 2; 679:23; 763: 26; 
826:4; 843:6; 1051:5; 
1082: 5 
πατρῷ, 348:3 
πατέρα, 745:0; 1122:3 
πατρία, 1162:9 
πάτρᾳ, 682:15 
πάτρῃ, 397:12 
πάτρην, 1130:10 
πατριαρχοῦντος, 801: 3 
πατριάρχου, 622:3 
πατρικίῳ, 660:3 
πατρικοῖς, 763:11 
πάτριον, 5:4 
πατρίων͵ 670:5 
πατρίς, 397:4; 561:2; 562:2 
πατρίδος, 366:7; 371:5; 


675:34 

πατρίδι, 347:2; 403:2; 
I161:7 

πατρίδα, 258:10; 670:3; 
1067:2 


πατροποιητῷ, 286:7 
πατρώιο, Ο12:2 
πατρῴους, 829:40; 1085:3 
πάτρωνα, 58:3 
mavpous, 1127:3 
ἐπαύσατο, 17:4 
παύσασθαι, τάτο: 7 
παυσαιμ᾽, I417:11 
πείθωσιν, 1130:10 
πελάγους, 5:2 
πέλω, Ξ61:1 
πελίων, 829:72 
πεμπόντων, 198:25 
πεμπόμενοι, 829:30 
πεμπομένοις, 820: 55 
318 


πέμψαι, 198:17 
πέμψας, 829:67 
πεμφθέντας, 743:9 
πένητας, 217:17 
πένησι, 195:4 
πενθερά, 4453: 
πενθερᾷ, 484:3 
πενθεράν, 00:2 
πενθερῶν, 222:7 
πένθιμος, 1417:10 
πένθη, 45:3 
πένθει, 329:13 
περόωντα, ττότ: 3 
περί, 198:13, 14, 16, 26, 44, 
49; 369:8; 373: 10; 440: 2; 


589:3; 743:10; 764:5; 
829:67, 68, 76; 977:13; 
1130:4 


περιβαλλομένων, 217:0 
περιβληθήσεται, 820: 57 
περιβλέπτου, 351:3 
περίβλεπτον, 607:1 
περιβόητος, 803:1 
περιεληλυθέναι, 820: 78 
περιπλεύσας, 1380:4 
περιραντήριον, 1186: 2 
περισσεύσαντος, 550:1 
περιτίου, ΞΟ: ΤΙ 
περιφανοῦς, 801: 2 
περιώσιον, T4193 
πικρόν, T1407 5 
πίνακα, 747:7 
πίνει, τοῦ: 4 
πίσσης, 742:9 
πίστιν, 195:2 
πιστοί, 876:1 
πισταῖς, 205: 5 
πιστῶς, 203:12 
πλειστάκις, 820:37 
πλεῖστον, 829: 33 
πλεῖστα, 829: 28 
πλείστην, 675:8 
πλεῖστοι, 829:45 
πλείω, 370: 27 
πλειόνων, 675: 21 
πλεονάκις, 820: 54 
πλεονεκτήματα, 820: 77 


ἔπλετο, 561: 2 
ἔπλευσα, 1380:9 
πλήν, 742211 
πληρώσαντα, 17:3 
πληρωσαμένων, 682: 7 
πλουσιοτέραν, 820: 82 
πνεύματος, 702: 3 
ποδός, 909:3 
ἐπόθησε, 74:2 
πόθῳ, 787:6; 806:4 
πόθον, 195:4 
ποιεῖ 255:13 
ποιοῦμεν, 829: 63 
ποιοῦν, 262: 32 
ἐποίουν, 522:2 
ἐποίει.  220:4; 


845:3 - 
ποιείτω, 200:7 
ποιεῖν, 198:54; 

976:21, 51, 61 
ποιεῖσθαι, 742:19 
ποιούμενος, 675:8 
ποιμένος, 790: 2 
ποιούμενοι, 682:16 
ἐποίησα, 42:4; 


973°5 
ἐποίησε, 81:4;  303:4; 
558: 2, 5 
ἐποίησεν, 14:1; 16:6; 
39:7; 254:7; 2832; 


301:8; 402:2; 1082:8 


ἐπόησεν, 367:3 
ἐποίησαν, 9:3; 
348:8 
ποιήσωσιν, 3906:19 
ποιήσαντες, O71: 43 
ποιησαμένου, 258:7 
ποικίλον, 787:7 
ποιμενάρχου,͵ 806: 5 
πολεμίους, 675:28; 847:8 
πόλεμον, 255:8; 976:7, 58 
πολιορκόμενοι, 976: 8 
πόλις, 366:7; 375:3; 683: 
3; 1089:3; 1408:4 
πόλεως, 53:2; 


236; 
393:2; 816:3; $26:7; 


200:8; 


262:21; 
-415:1; 769:3; 920:4; 


281:3; 


ἐπ στα 
248:, 8), 260112; 33855; 


INDEX 
364:6; 675:41, 48; 
SELIG) 7}. to20 S723 
1130:4 


πόλος, 976:47; 1347:3 

πόλει, 61:2; 213:1; 380: 
3; 409:3; 410: 5; 580: 
4; 593:7; ©75:9, 45: 
781:4; 801:3; 976:35; 


1130:14; 1220:7; 
1298:2 

πόλιν, 370:25; 671:58, 
68;  764:5; 909:8; 


976:41; 1130:4, 5, 6 
πόλι, 248:3; 776:8 
πόλεσι, 198: 43 
πόλεις, 675:25 


πόλε, 301:1 
πολιταρχῶν, 248:6; 258:5; 


675:48 

πολιταρχοῦντα, 260:3 

πολειταρχούντων, 365:10; 
366:7; 367:13; 369:9 

πολιταρχοῦντων, 2:2; 368: 
1; 683:4; 886:4 


πολιτάρχου, 738:4 


πολειτάρχῃ, 217:24, 40 
πολειτάρχην, 217:30 
πολιτάρχαι, 675: 2 


πολιτείας, 217:31 


πολειτίας͵, 829:71 
πολιτείᾳ, 217:15, 43 


πολιτευσάμενος, 113134 
πολίτην, 1130:7 


πολῖται, 1369:6, 9 
πολιτῶν, 67L:5, 24 
πολειτῶν, 217:3, 36 
πολίταις, 671:72 
πολείταις, 4:3; 217:25 


πολλάκις, 829:13, 75, 83 
πολύ͵ 370:27 


πόληι, 976: 36 


πολλῶν, 112:1: 217:3; 
675:30; 787:3; 820: 
41 


πολλούς, 403:6; 675:29 
πολλάς, 671:3; 675:20 
πολλά͵ 217:8; 470:3 


TOAVHPATE, 329: 1 


319 


103 


πολυάνθρωπον, §29:82 
πόνῳ, 806:4 
πόνων, I41Q:12 
πορεύεσθαι, 829: 50 
πορθμεύσας, 403:1 
πόροιον͵ 361:8 
πόρε, 360:1 
πορφυροβάφων͵ 430: 2 
πόσις, 214:1; 40174; 1419:4 
πόσιν, 5:9; 1172112 
πόσεις, 403:7 
ποτέ, 403:8 
ποτ᾽, 470:3; 540:3 
πραγμάτων, 682: τὸ 
πράγματα͵ 675:5 
πραιποσίτῳ͵ 652:4 
πραιτωρίου, 82:2 
πραιτωρίῳ, 281:2 
πραίτωρι,͵ 652:6 
πράξεως, τοϑ:13 
πραπίσιν͵ 398:3 
πρᾶσις, 202:12 
πράσσων͵ 675:34 
πραχθεῖσι, ς8ρ: ς 
πεπραγμένων͵ 675:38 
πρεσβείαν, 253:4 
πρεσβείαις, 37:5 
πρεσβύτερος, 1324:1 
πρεσβυτέρου, ττο: 2; 111:3 
πρεσβευτής, 671:45, 58 
πρεσβευτοῦ, 671τ:48 
πρεσβευτήν, 671: 36 
πρεσβευτῶν, 217:48 
πρεσβευτάς͵ 675:40 
πρεσβεύσαντα, 330:5 
ἐπρεσβεύσαντο͵ 370:4 
πρεσβεύσας, 248: 2 
πρέσβυν͵ 1123:2 
πρέσβεις, 198:50; 743:6, 
8; 743:14 
mpnvvdos, 398:2 
ἐπρίατο, 126:3 
πρίν͵ 360:2; 742:13 
πρίντζιπι, 246:4 
mp6, 258:15; 1385:3 
προαίρεσιν, 675:43 
προελόμενος, 675: 26 
προβουλευσαμένων͵ 671: 2 


104 LEGAL TERMS IN MACEDONIAN INSCRIPTIONS AND THE N.T. 


«μρογονικούς. 829:48 
προγόνων, 675:35; 1411:6 
προγράμμασιν, 820: 68 
προγεγραμμένου, τ26:12; 
258:22 
προγεγραμμένῃ, 820:17 
πρόεδρος, 787:5 
προέδρου, 801: 2 
προέδρων, 977:6 
προέστη, 562:8 
προείρηνται, 671:7, 27 
προειρημένας, 829:79 
πρόεσιν, 363:6 
προθύμος, 976:51 
πρόθυμοι, 976: 25, 60 
προῖκα, 829: 52 
προϊόντι, 670: 2 
προϊόντων, 829:44 
προϊστάμενος, 675:7 
προϊσταμένων, 700: 5 
προκεῖσθαι, 829:61 
προκειμένου, 666: 3 
προκειμένην, 353:5 
προκειμένοις, 67: τὸ 
προλιπεῖν, 829: 48 
προλιπών, 195:4 
προλείψας, 403:2 
προλέλοιπα, 403:9 
προνοήσασθαι, 829:66 
mpovonbeis, 675:19 
mpovonbevrwr, 675:47 
mpovola, 524:2 
πρόνοιαν, 675:8; 829:58 
προνοοῦντες, 209: 2 
πρόξενος, 671:2, 21; 1130: 
3; 1327:2 
προξένου, 671: 29 
πρόξενον, 256:3 
πρόπασα, 403:12 
πρόπασιν, 403:5 
πρός, I17:2; 125:10; τοῦ: 
26, 39; 302:0; 370:16, 
253477:4; 671: 58; 672: 2; 
675:41; 682:5; 742:23, 
20: 77 bape dai 2cn2: 
1364:2 
προσανγείλαντος, 258:9 
προσάγειν, 255:10 


προσδέξεος, 1418: 1 
προσεδεξάμεθα, 671:52 
προσεμπονοῦσι, 217:20 
προσέρδεν, 1218: 2 
προσηκέτω, 198:15 
προσηνής, 625:6 
πρόσθε, 1419:8 
προσκομίσομεν, 829:16 
mpoorayuata, 829:42, ὃς 
προστάττοντες, 198: 43 
προστάτης, 1369:7 
προστάτου, 367:19 
προστάτην, 330:4 
προστάτας, 847:14 
προστείμου, 415:4; 418:4; 
426:5; 476:4 
προστίμου, 180:9 
προστίμῳ, 776:7 
πρόστιμον, 83:3; 126:18 
προσφέρει, 246:3 
προσφιλής, 1131:5, 8; 1140: 
Ὁ; 1167:1; 1169:1; 1295: 
23) £30202 15395:2; 1267: 
1. ΑἹ ΤΤΟΙΥ 2; 1520:2; 
1345:3; 1365:1, 2; 1367: 
Τ᾽ 1595:2 
προτελευτήσαντα, 260:4 
πρότερον, 217:12; 829:81; 
976:61 
προτέρων, 112733 
προτέροις, 198: 31 
προτέρους, 76:4 
πρότοις, 976: 30 
προφάσεις, 829:70 
προφητῶν, 37:6 
προφθάσας, 45:1 
προφιλής, I591:3 
mpoxpnuatioat, 198:55 
προχωρεῖν, 829: 22 
πρυτανείας, 255:3; 077:5 
πρυτανεῖον, 255:19 
émpuTd veve, 198:3 
émpuTd vevev, 255:4 
πρωτεκδίκῳ, 636:6 
πρωτοθρόνου, 355:6 
πρωτονοτάριος, 648:4 
πρωτοσπαθαρίου, 622:4; 
631:3 
320 


πρωτοσπαθαρίῳ,  630:2; 
647:4; 650:3; 651:4; 
695:4; 660:4 

πρωτής, 359: 2 

πρῶτον, 410:2; 811:6; 
1369:8 


πρώτην, 803:5; I411:9 

πρῶτα, 4:4 
πρώτως, 305:15 
mopevbévres, 675: 40 
πτώματος, 075:17 
πυκτεύσας, 16:2 
πύλη, 592:2 

πύλας, 1364:3 
πυθέσθαι, 76:7 
πωτωμένη, 403:13 


ῥόδον, τόρ: 
ῥνέντα, 806:1 


σεβάσμιος, 610:1 
σεβάσμιον, 500: 2 
σεβαστός, 60:7 
σεβαστοῦ, 371:4; 427:3; 
528:0; 1338:2 
σεβαστῷ, 492:6 
σεβαστόν, 1086: 2 
σεβαστῶν, 52:3 
σειρά, 670: 17 
σέλας, 669: 2 
σεμνοῦ, 1294:1 
σεμνά, 1162:10 
σεμνοτάτης, 222:4 
σεμνοτάτῃ, 744:4 
σεμνότατον, 1410:6 
σεμνότητα, 258:17 
σεμνῶς, 72:3; 453:5 
σεραπίωνι, ἀπ τι1 
σῆμα, 37:3; 76:2; 165:2; 
404:4 
σῆμ᾽, 482:5 
σθένει, 611:4 
oinkdv, 833:2 
σῖτον, 198: 35 
oKevacauévous, 855 :6 
σκηνὴν, 340:1 
σκήνιμα, O29:12 
σκίρτησον͵ 669:3 


ν 


σκιώδεις͵ 666: 2 

σκοτίης, 360:2 

σμικρόν, ττ721:3 

σορόν͵ 524:1; 1208:1τ 

σοφίης, ττ26:2 

σπαθαροκανδιδάτος͵ 648:: 

σπείρησις, 267:4 

σπείσασθαι, 742:33 

σπουδῇ, 806:4 

στάδιοι͵ 363(4):2 

σταλέντας, 682:6 

στατῆρας͵ 1130:14 

σταυρώσεως͵ 352:2 

ἔστεξεν͵, 675:23 

ἐστενάχησε, ττό3:2, 6 

στερέω͵ 719:3 

στερέωσον, 702:1 

ἐστέρεσεν͵ 1172:14 

στεφανηφόρον͵ 1134: 5 

στεφάνου, 671:40, 65, 75 
στεφάνωι, 671:9, 13; 675: 

38 

στέφανον, 396:4; 675:45 
στεφάνους, 397:14 

στεφανοῖ, 671:12 
στεφανοῦται, 1071:2 
στεφανῶσαι, 671:8; 675: 


37 
ἐσστεφάνωκεν, 671:61 


στέφος, 397:8 
στέφαντα, 589:3 
στήθεσιν, 45:6 
στήλης, 743:4 
στήληι, 256:6 
στήλην, 76:5; 248:9; 694: 
10; 847:16 
στήριζε, 363(11):1 
στόρνυσθαι, 247:3 
στρατευμάτων, 371:8 
ἐστράτευσεν, 267:5 
στρατευσάμενος, 
419:2 
στρατηγάρχῃ, 639:4 
στρατηγός, 255:6; 637:3 
στρατηγοῦ, 622:4; 431:4; 
675:13; 714:73 715:7; 
τοι; 717: O 
στρατηγῷ, 346:6; 630:4; 
649:4; 660: 5 


393:3; 


INDEX 


oT pareyot, 976: 39 
στρατηγόν, 200:5 
στρατηγοί, 198:56 
στρατηγούς, 255:15 
στρατιάν, 976:40 
στρατιώτης, 222:1; ΔΙΟΣΙ 
στρατιώτου, 34:2; 615:2, 
6; 616:6; 617:2 
στρατιῶται, 829:80 
στρατιωτῶν, 675:14, τς 
στρατιώτας, 675: 24 
στρατιωτικοῦ, 503:5 
στρατοπέδωι, 675:12 
στρατοπέδων, 829:19 
στρῶμα, 1348:4 
στυγνός, 1161:4 
στυγνόν, 1162:6 
συγγενείας, 740:6 
συγχωρήσαντα, 55:3 
συγχωρῆσαι, 889:6 
συνεκεχωρήκειμεν, 671: 53 
συνέλαβεν, 675:30 
συλλήβδην, 370:15 
συμβάντος, 675:14 
σύμβιος͵ 281:6; 479:3 
συνβίου, 35:3; 225:4; 
363(8):3; 607:3; 664: 2 
oupBly, 85:3; 168:5; 175: 
4; 238:4; 283:3; 287:2; 
406:5; 453:3; 487:6; 
545:1; 560:2; 692:5; 
693:3; 814:3; 817:2; 
929:7; 933:6 
συνβίῳ, 478:1; 
781:2 
σύνβιον, 748:2 
συμβιώσασα, 165:5 
συναυμαχοῦντες, 9760: 42 
συμμαχίας, 742:23 
συμμαχίᾳ, 742224 
συμμαχίαν, 675224 
συμμάχους, 742:3 
συμπλέουσιν, 1383:5 
συμπολιορκέσοντες, 976: 42 
συμποσιάρχης, 1135: 2 
συνπραγματευόμενοι, 3: 2 
σύν, 403:2 
συναγαγόντων, 258:6 


321 


488: 3; 


105 


συναγομένη, 829:75 
συναχθέντος, 675:11 
συναίμοσι, 1162:7 
συνχαρέντες, 675: 41 
συνάπηρεν, 195:3 
συναπελθόντος, 675: 22 
συνδιεπολέμησαν, 976:7 

συνδιεπολέμεσαν, 976: 53 


συνδρομῆς, 209:2; 351:3; 
00:2; 801:2; 802:1; 
804:3; 1109:3 


συνέδριον, 1410:6 
σύνεδροι, 218: 2 
συνεισφέροντας, 247:5 
συνεισφορά, 247: 5 
συνεργίας, 593:3 
συνευαρεστούντων, 222: 5 
συνεχέστατα, 820:35 
συνεχῶς, 198:54 
συνήθεια, 439:1; 440:1 

συνήθειαν, 820: ὃς 
συνήθει, 596: 2 
συνθιασίταις, 284:4 
συνομαίμονας, 403:9 
σύνοπλον, 562:5 
συντελείας, 702: 2 
συντελεῖν, 247:4 

συνετέλουν, 820:22 

συντελεσθῶσι, 671:66 
συνέθετο, 363:4 
συστάσεως, ς80:2 
σφαλείς, 1162:6 
σφετέραν, τοϑ: 46 
σφόδρα, 370: 28 
σφραγίς, 646:2; 1015:2 
σῶμα, 46:8 

σώματος, 106:3 

σωμάτων, 829:74 

σωτῆρα, 60:12; 1081:2 
σωτηρίας, 125:4 

σωτηρίᾳ, 829:14 

σωτηρίαν, 353:4; 1108:4 
σωτηρίου, 1110:6 
σωφροσύνης, 165:7; 40173 

σωφροσύνην, 670:8 


τάλαντα, 1127:1 
ταμείου, 829:14 


106 LEGAL TERMS IN MACEDONIAN INSCRIPTIONS AND THE N.T. 


ταμιείῳ, 180:9; 413:3 τελευτησάσῃ, 238:4 τιμᾶς͵ 1162:10 
ταμείῳ, 420:2; 426:5; τελευτῶντι, 300:4 τιμήν, 126:15 
447:3; 740:8; 781:4; τελευτῆσαι, 675: 11 τιμίας, 352:3 
1220:8 τελευτήσαντι, 73:3 τειμοῦχον, 1134: 4 
ταμιεύων, 248:6 τελευτήσας, 83:1 τις, 847:17 
ταμίας, 675:16 τελευτήν, 46:4; 417:2 τίνων, 799:6 
ταμίου, 364:6; 367:20; τελέουσι, 742:16 τλάμονα, 1161:8 
368: 5 τελεῖν, 198: 30 πλάμδραν, 1163:4 
Taplw, 401:9; 929:14 τελέοντας, 742:14 Peete Papers 
τοιαύτης, 820: 86 
ταξιάρχων, 804: 2 τελέσαντι, 253:4 
τόκων, 258:13 
ταπεινός, 246:1; 836:1 Téhos, τοδ: 25; 743:4 τοκεῦσι, 397:13 
τἀργύριον͵ 258: 20, 25 ea dobar νὰ τοκεῦσιν, 1140:8 
ἐτετάχατο, 198: 31 ΤΕ ΠΣ: ΠΗ τολμήσει, 781:2; 933:3 
τεταγμένου, 198: 40 sae, » 025: τολμήσι͵ O29: 17 
τεταγμένῳ, 198:47 τέρμ᾽, 40127 τολμήσῃ, 401:8; 415:3; 
τεταγμένους, 675:16 τερπνόν͵ 787:7 42633; 47535; ΞΟΣ ΟΣ 
Tavpov, 374:3 τέρψις, 670: 11 740:5 
ταφήν, 461: 2 Τεσμόν, τ417:4 ἐτόλμησαν, 829:45 
τέταρτον, 366:5, 6 τόπος͵ 607: 1 
τάφος, 89:1; 625:1 is 
τ αφυῦ, 465) wa CERES τεῦξε, 401: 4 τόπωι, 675:46 
τάφῳ, 180: ute τεῦξεν, 180:2; 694:7 τόπον, 247:3; 399: 10 
βίαι Ι τὸ Ih” ΟῚ ἔτευξεν, 710:1 τόσσους, 307:12 
i 9:10; στον ἔτευξαν, 780: 6 τραπέζῃ, τοῦ: 2 
aa a ‘ revéas, 160: 11 θρέψε, 112274 
τάφους, 1417:9 τέχνης, 869: 3 ἐτρέψατο, 675: τό 
τάφροις, 396:8 é ἷ τροφείων, 5:9 
᾿ T xn, 847:10 6, 8 . 
τάχα, 803:0 τήθῃ, 47:1 ρέψας, 387:7 
τείχους, 593:2 τημιωτάτου͵ 209:3 beds lag. ie ἜΝΙ 
τειρόμενοι, 320:13 τηνίκα, 563:4 ἡ Ἶ δ᾿ 


τρομέεις͵ 66ο: ς 


τέκνῳ, 28:4; 31:2; 77:3; τηρούμενον, 855:4 τρόπον͵ 829:17 
, 820: 


172:4,), 174:5;8 210:2; ἔθηκα͵ 1208:1 : 
400:5; 428:2; 431:3; τίθεσθαι, 675:38 τροφήν, 116: 2 
433:3; 435:2; 473:3; τεθῆναι, 409:4; 675:46; τρόφιμος, 507:3 
534745 538:2; 556:1; 682:18; 740:4; 889:7 TO TE 4 
686:3; 695:4; 750:2 τεθνάναι, 847:9 τρυφήν, 29:74 
τέκνων, 21: 2. 62:2; θέσθων, 1369:16 τυγχάνωσι, 077.00 
338:3; 401:90; 403:16; θέμενος͵ 12:2 τύμβιον͵ 21574 
445:5; 607:4; 783:3; τεκούσῃ, 172:5 ἀπ ερτι 160:8; 523:1 
τύμβον, ττ7:3 


824:2 τήκομεν͵ 45:8 ‘ 

τέκνοις, 42:3; 204:43 τεκοῦσαν, 643: 2 τύμθοι, 1417°5 
434:4; 479:4; 670:1; τέκε, ττότ:ς ieniats, 397:8 
696:4; 769:6; 929:10; τεχέτω, 396:16 ibid, 352:1; 1108: 3 
1298: 2 τέκος͵ T161:6 τύχης, 829: 69 


TONY, 1:1; 243:4; 262273 
342:1; 671:27; 829:62; 
113033; LI4t:1; 1192: 


σένα Seno as τῆπγτῆς τιμῶσι, 671:6, 26 
179225) slow 3s ono: ἐτίμησαν, 1084:1 


281:3; 444:3; 547:1; τιμῶντες, 3:7 1; 1217:2 
1419:9 ἐτειμήσαντο͵ 217:7 τύχην, 408:6 
ἐτελειώθην, 803: ς τειμωμένω, 282:4 τύχοι, 4:6 


322 


ὕβριν, 1127:2 
ὑγείας, 371:1 
ὑγιαίνειν, 675: 42 
ὑδέ, 203:21 


ὕδωρ, 62:5 
ὑδάτων, 820:33 

vids, 5:6; 107:2; 248: 
7) 277:4; 461:2; 464: 
3; 470:1; 404:3; 514: 


I; 531:6; 561:4; 675: 
45 752:4; 782:2; 1134:2; 
1136:2 
υἱοῦ, 81:4; 214:4; 272:6; 
301: 3; 364:3 
vig, 84:3; 20421; 231:2; 
254:3; 390:2; 406:8; 
410:3; 493:4; 496:1; 
740:2; 81534; 973:3; 
1348:1 
maw, 12:6; 10:2; 72:2; 
260:2, 4; 292:2; 811: 
Q; 812:5; 1124:3 
ὑιοί, 450:3 
υἱῶν, 301: 5 
viots, 826:8 
υἱάσιν, 1163:7 
υἱούς, 37:5 
ὑός, 178:9 
ὑῷ, 177:3; 1347:5 
ὕπαρχον, 669: 2 
ὑπάτῳ͵ 566: -ς 
ὑπέρ, 125:4; 108:17; 217: 
II; 420:2; 59¢:8; 1130: 
12 
ὑπεραγίας, 206:2; 355:2 
ὕπερθε, 160:13 
ὑπερφιάλου, 669: 1 
ὑπηρεσίαν, 820: 55 
ὑπηρετήσαντος, 592:0 
ὑπηρετήσαντα, 386:10 
ὑπηρετηκότα, 855:9 
ὑπό, 126:6; 198:47; 207: 
το 2173: 245 τ5;. 201: 
3; 365:8; 370:24; 374: 
4; 401:7; 743:15; 976:47 
bm’, 398:6; 1162: 6:1348:5 
ὑπογεγραμμένοι, 2:7; 53:93 
234:3 


INDEX 


ὑποκειμένους, 427: 2 
ὑπομένειν, 829:30 
ὑποστειλάμενος, 675: 28 
ὑπουργίας, 590:4 
ὑποφέρειν, 829: 36 
ὑστατίην, 694:12 
ὑπέστην, 670: 20 
ὑψίστῳ, 6:1; 

923:3 

ὑψοῦ, 403:13 


7:2; 38:4; 


φαιδρῶς, 806:3 
pavelreat, 76:3 
φανείης, 329:10 
φανήσῃ, 116:1 
φάος, 173:8; 398:3 
φεογέτω, 847: 23 
pebyev, 847:3 
φέρω, 361:6 
φέρῃ, 1369: 10 
φέρειν, 198:9; 829:46 
φεῦ, 625:7; 670:15, 20 
φεύγοντες, 1309:5 
φευξόμεθα, 829:56 
φήμῃ, 1108:2 
ἔφημον, 1413:3 
ἐρῶ, 362:2 
Epet, 30133 
εἴπας, 403: 23 
εἶπαν, 671:56; 675:3 
εἶπε, 198:5, 34, 59, 60; 


976: 39 

εἶπεν,  214:6; 255:6, 
20; 671:2, 21; 764:3; 
976:6; 977:8 


εἴπῃ, 1130:13 
εἰπεῖν, 198:18, 27; 1130: 
12 

εἰπόντος, 742:13 
φθάσαντα, 820: 8 
φθενξομ᾽, 1172:6 
φθιμέναν, 1163:6 

φθιμένοισι, 320:1τ5 

φθόνον, τόρ: 2 
φθορᾶς, 625:8 
φίλαισιν, 1162:8 
φιλανδρίας, 215: 4 
φιλάνδρῳ, 462:τ 

929 


107 


prréwy, 19571 
φιλίαν, 200:8 
φιλίην, 742:20 
φίλιος, 401: 4 

girly, 180:3 
φιλοδοξίας, 812:11 
φιλοξενίην, 195:2 
φίλος, 199:9 

φίλη, 670: 11 

φίλου, 1419:8 

φίλης, 403: 27 

φίλῳ, 11:5 

φίλος 203:173 234355 

1419:7 

φίλα, τόρ: 5; 1419:9 
φιλοτιμία, 670:18 

φιλοτιμίας, 675:9 
φιλοτίμως, 1084: 2 
φιλοχρίστων, 622:2; 799:6 
φίλτροισι, 561:4 
φίσκῳ, 363(5):6 
φόρος, 1383:6 

φόρου, 198:8, 30 

φόρους͵ 829: 21, 58 
φράσον, 625:7 
φρένες, 45:6 
φρόνησιν, 670:9 
φρουρῶν, 675:19 
φύλακα, 666: 4 
φυλάττοντες, 198: 40 
φύσεως, 670:18 
φῶς, 670:11, 16 

φῶτα, 1122: 


φῶτας, 160:6 


χαίροις, 74:11; 403, Γ΄: 8 
χαῖρε, 83:4; 1943; 
2 ΠΟ: 402:}.2 ΤΟ: 
400:6; 403, B’:5; 472: 
5; 535:2; 536:6, 7; 
541:3; 546:3; 673:3; 
805:2; 850:3; 974:3; 
LEST Oye Os ees 23) 
1125:3; 1205; r 140° 
ὃ; “τεῦγ:2:.  ττῦθ: 1: 
ΤΥ) Δ ΥΥΥΤ ΘΙ by 170: 
Ὁ ὙΙΘΟΙ 2: O22) 
12]: 25k 250.34) Ὁ: 


108 LEGAL TERMS IN MACEDONIAN INSCRIPTIONS AND THE N.T. 


1292.2") T2903 2; ΤΩΘδ: 
2; 129634; 1207: 25 
£2002 251) .262.:.3.. 6; 
1303:4; 1306:2; 1307: 
ἘΠ 6 elsOo1as ΦΦ10. 4; 
τ 1. ὙΠ22: 2,0... 8} 
1331:3; 1332:1; 1333: 
2; 1336:2; 1343:2; 
1345:4, 6; 1346:3; 
1354:3; 1355:5; 1365: 
I, 2; 1367:1; 1417:3; 
1424:4, 7, 10, 1425:3; 


223:3; 224:4; 230:3; 
238:9; 252:3, 6; 254: 
8; 263:4; 283:4; 288: 
5; 290:4; 294:6; 300: 
73 301:9; 302:3; 305: 
3: 306:9; 308:14; 
310:5; 331:4; 341:4; 
363(5):4; 386:6; 388: 
7; 390:3; 391:2; 304: 
33 395:4; 397:3; 398: 
3; 399:8; 400:6; 403, 
B’:4; 404:6; 405, 4; 


7; 1373:6; 
1415:2 
χέριν, τόρ: 4 
χαριτωμένη, 807:1 
κεχαριτωμένη, 805:2 
κέχανεν, 1127:3 
χαριστήριον, 923:3 
χείρ, 1121: 5 
χεῖρα, 1186:2 
χειρῶν, 675: 20 
χηλός, 1172:5 
χθονός, 195:3 


1414:3; 


1428:3 406, το; 407, 4; 408, 9; χθονί, 1172:1 
χαίρετε, 16:7; 79:3; τόρ: 409:2; 410:4; 411:3; χιλιάδας, 447:4 
2. Ἂς ΠΟ δ; 20555. 412:3; 413:2; 414:4; χιλίους, 1130:13, 14 
470:2; 870:2; 1389:3 AQT OY A225; 423524; χίλια, 83:2; 103:7 
χαίρειν, 92:3: 169:3; 671: 428:2; 430:7; 432:6; χιλιοστοῦ, 1110:6 
47; 814:4 433245 435:8; 436:7; χοῖρον, 1218:2 
χέριν, 169:4 439:8; 443:6; 444:4; χορηγεῖν, 829: 20, 52 
ἐχάρη, 1104:5 445:6; 449:6; 453:6; xopls, 976:32 
χαῖραι, 123:2 458:2; 463:5; 465:5; χορόν, 1172:9 
χαλκαῖς, 671:9, 14, 62 467:5; 468:11; 471:5; χοροί, 671:11 
χαλκάς͵ 671: 28 473:5; 475:4; 476:3; χρῆσθαι, 198: 19 
aie bet ane 477:2; 478:1; 479:6; χρείας, 671:2, 21 
? ; 480:4; 481:6; 484:4; χρείαν, 258: 24 
χαριζόμενον, 580: 7 485:3; 486:3; 487:8; χρεών, 498:6 
χάρις, 523:3; 1108:1 489:6; 499:3; 508:2; χρή, 8ςς:ς 
χάριν, 8:3; 10:5; 12:7; 514:5, 8; 515:3; 517: 


χρημάτον, 976:18 
χρήματα, 200:4; 
976:12 
χρήματ᾽, 847: 21 
χρήμασιν, O76: 15 
χρηματίζῃ, 1369:15 
χρηματίσαι, τοῦ: 52; 977: 


14 5: TStAs 16:6; en: 2; 518, 25 521-0; 520: 
4; 27:4; 28:4; 20:7; 2; §27:7; 529:8; 530: 
30:6; 31:3; 39:4; 40: 5; 531:3; 534:6; 536: 
4; 43:1; 44:6; 73:5; 5; 537:3; 540:4; 547: 
77:6; 78:6; 79:2; 80: 3; 555:2; §50:3; 565: 
2; 81:5; 82:3; 84:3; 3; 595:6; 596: 3; 627:3; 


255:8; 


85:6; 87:3; 93:25 95: 671:59; 679:5; 685:4; = 
4; 96:3; 97:4; 98:3; 686:4; 687:3; 691:4; { : 
99:3; 100:4; I01:6; 692275. (604: 1Ej4 το: miuamntamoehrcs 


χρηματισμόν, 266: 2 


103:3; 104:4; 122:4; 695:5; 696:5; 744:5; 

130:3; 143:6; 146:4; 745:0; 746:93 748:4; Χρήσεως, 227: 31 
E47:35 49223, 1503; 749:10; 750:3; 765:3; Χρῆσιν, 820718, 34 
156:4; 158:5; 159:53 γαῖα, 776:3; 78329; ΧΡΊΠΤΗ, 184:2 
160:3; 162:4; 166:5; δότε; SOGl7- 13:3, ΧΡΉ TOR, 1752 
το ΟΣ; τ VETS Ts 815:5; 817:4; 819:3; χρηστήρια, 1588: 5 
E7025. 577545 ΤΊΘΕΙ: 824:3; 826:5; 829:48; χρηστόν, 184:3 
ΤΟΣ: LOLA; 92:2) 843:7; 862:3; 863:10; Χρῆστέ, το4:3; 850:2; 
1543165) 85:2: 19: 2; 865:1; 867:8; 909:11; 1132:3 

ΤῸ 4 2: 20 το: 250! 3" Q10:2; 973:6; 1051:8; XPNTTH, 1121:4 
ΤΣ 2: 2 ΟΞ: 5, 222: 8; 1082:8; 1175:5; 1347: χριστιανῶν, 1109:6 


324 


INDEX 109 


χρόνον, 593:8; 675:6, 44; χωρίον, 1364:3, 5, ὁ ψήφισμα, 198:14, 16, 41; 
1100:4 χωρίωι, τ364:2 200:9; 671:17; 675:42, 
χρόνοι, 976: 28 χωρίων, 62:5 45; 847:17; 113023; 
χρόνων, 829:44 χωρίοις, 217:11 II4I:1; 1369:13, 14 
χρόνους, 589:9 χώρῳ, 106: 2 σφέφισμα, 976: 55 

χρυσοῦ, 670: τ7; 929:14 χῶρον, 669: 4; 1140: 4 ψηφίσματος, 671:52, 67 


χρυσαῖ, 354:2 ψηφίσματα, 365:0; 671: 


χώρτῃ, 597:6 


χρυσαῖς, 806: 2 37, 49, 58 
χρυσοτρικλήνου, 655: 2 ψηψφῖσι, 806: 2 
χρυσοῦς, 1298: 3 γευσάμενοι, 25755 ψυχή, 46:7; 403:12; 1140: 
χρυσῶν, 848:4 ἐψηφίσατο, 671:63 3; ἘΠ ΑΡΕΣῚ 
χσένια, ογ6: ςς ἐψηφίσθαι, 255:9 977:10; 
χώρας, 198: 22 1334:3 K : 5 
χώραν, τοϑ: 21 ψηφίζωνται, τοῦ: 45 ON ἢ 


χωρίς, 198:16; 401:8; 411: ἐψηφισμένων͵ 671: 74 pi tl. 


4; 426:43 500:1; 503:1; ἐψηφισμένα, 1130:13; . ὥριμος, 116:3 
742:21 T141:6 ὥσπερ, 198:12; 670:6 


325 


The Christology of the Epistle 
to the Hebrews 


The 


Christology of the Epistle 
to the Hebrews 


Including Its Relation to the Developing 
Christology of the Primitive 
Church 


ay: 
HARRIS LACHLAN MacNEILL, Pu.D. 


Professor of New Testament Language and Literature 
Brandon College, Brandon, Manitoba 


THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO PRESS 
CHICAGO, ILLINOIS 


ΟΟΡΥΒΙΟΗΤ 1914 ΒΥ 
THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO | 


ἈΠ Ristits Reserved 


Published March, 1914 


Composed and Printed By 
The University of Chicago Press 
Chicago, Ilinois, U.S.A. 


ah 


LIST OF ERRATA 
(In MacNeill, H. L.: The Christology of the Epistle to the Hebrews) 


For “ITN read “TN, page 71, lines 2, 5, and το. 
“oN 5 "ἬΝ “72, lines 18 and 21. 
τὰ “oN τ “TIN “73, line 20. 
4 ἫΝ che TS oa, line 14, 
4 PDN Fs ΠΝ “71, line 8. 
τ mb ᾿ TDN ‘¢ τς line 15. 
ἢ ΠῸΝ ὰ Tbs nga dine 22. 


“ 172 te ry") “72, line 9 and note 4. 
« 172 « 7 72. Fine ΤΟ. 

“ aya εἰ N72 " Ga, lines 15 and ro. 
“ aye ee N72 ‘‘ 73, lines 4 and 16. 


( ἘΣ “ ΝΠ ( 75, line 23. 
ὰ ΜΉΘ τὸν 78, tine 13. 


ee ee tk ΕΣ ΠΣ << #2, note ©, 
a= = 
aaa Ἂν “2 “72, note 4. 
« oxo « xb  “ 72, note 3 (end). 
ae, Tito 
ὩΣ 4 Sway) “72, note 4. 
| 
δ mm 3 mim “ 73, note 2. 


( mi ( min ( 75, note 3. 
papavada “ μαρὰν ἀθά, page 72, line 8. 


ΞΡ Paste this in your copy of the book 


TABLE OF CONTENTS 


PAGE 
INTRODUCTORY Bert) τὰν 


I. Analysis of the Epistle to the Hebrews 
II. Introduction to the Epistle 
III. General Doctrinal Views and Framework 


I. Human ELEMENTS IN THE CHRIST-CONCEPTION OF THE 
RTE SD eo ie he το ee BI as) ew ee ee 
I. The Writer’s Knowledge of the Historical Jesus 
II. Human Elements in Harmony with This Historical Knowledge 
III. General Statement 


II. TRANSCENDENT ELEMENTS IN THE CHRIST-CONCEPTION OF 
Πρ WEE AR ES DEE? ann ae an a od) Rey 0 
I. The Three Periods in Jesus’ Career 
II. Christ as Superior to the Angels and Moses 
III. Christ Superior as High Priest after the Order of Melchizedek 
1. Christ the Mediator of a Better Covenant 
2. Sinlessness of Jesus 
3. Jesus as Author of Eternal Salvation 
IV. Christ as Eternal 
1. Cosmic Significance of Christ 
2. Relation of Christ to Men 
3. Relation of Christ to God 
V. Various Titles of Christ 
1. The Christ (6 χριστός) 
. The Apostle (6 ἀπόστολος) 
. The Firstborn (ὃ πρωτότοκος) 
. The Lord (6 κύριος) 
. The Son (6 vids) 


na & WwW DN 


11. Résumé: THe Torar Curist PERSONALITY A Se Sls ΠΟ] 


IV. Sources AND RELATIONS OF THE THOUGHT OF THE EPISTLE 105 


I. Sources and Relations of the General Doctrine 
1. Classic Judaism 

. Later Judaism and Primitive Christianity 

. Alexandrianism 

. Oriental Mystery-Religions 

. Probable Original Elements 


5 


ne wns 


θ HISTORICAL AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES 


PAGE 
II. Sources and Relations of the Christological Doctrine, Including 


an Outline of New Testament Christology 

_ Consideration of Ps. 2:7 as Used in Heb. 1:5 and 5:5 
. Jesus’ Self-Estimate 

. Primitive Christian Christology 

. The Christology of Paul 

. Divergent Movements after Paul 


σι PW N Κα 


CONCLUDING REMARKS 3.))900200 0 ee) es ee 


332 


The author makes glad acknowledgment of indebtedness to all his 
instructors in the Department of New Testament Literature and Inter- 
pretation, but especially to Associate Professor Clyde Weber Votaw, 
who not only suggested the subject, but who has followed the work 
upon it with helpful suggestion and kindly criticism. 


333] 7 


Π| 


III. 


335] 


INTRODUCTORY 


I. ANALYSIS OF THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS 


Introduction 

1. God’s revelation in the ἌΣ ΕΣ: in ite ee Sits 

2. God’s revelation in a Son; the Son’s work and dignity. 

3. Transition to the main theme, viz., the superiority of 
Christ and of God’s revelation in him 


. Superiority of the Son to the angels . 


1. Superior in being a Son as shown from Old πο τὺ 
quotations 
2. Parenetic section. T he peal = Beenie We salvation 
3. Supremacy in the world to come 
a) Promised to man not to angels : 
b) Realized in Jesus, the representative, ender: an 
brother of men : 
c) who for their salvation is fae ΕΞ men 


Superiority of the Son to Moses and Joshua. 
1. Jesus faithful, as was Moses, over God’s house . 
2. Jesus’ glory greater than that of Moses 
a) Moses part of the house, Jesus the builder 
b) Moses a servant, Jesus a Son 
3. Parenetic section 
a) Danger of unbelief and ees 
b) Exhortation to enter into God’s rest fates 
4. Transition to the presentation of Jesus as High Priest 


Superiority of Jesus as High Priest 
1. The person and dignity of Jesus as High Bees) 
a) God-appointed and sympathetic from experience 
b) Parenetic digression. A reproof for backwardness 
and an exhortation to renewed earnestness based on 
the promise and oath of God 
c) Melchizedek as type of Jesus 

1) Melchizedek and Abraham . ᾿ > 

2) Melchizedek superior to Abraham aad 1: 

3) The imperfect Levitical priesthood and law dis- 
placed by the perfect priesthood of Jesus and the 
better hope 

4) Jesus as Sona peer ee Upped forever by 
oath of God 

9 


I:1-4 
ἘΠῚ 
5.2: 3 


1:4 
52-20 


I:5-14 

2:54 
2:5-18 
2:5-8a 


2:8b-13 
2:14-18 
3:I—4:13 
3:1; 2 
3:3-6 
3°3,4 
3:5, 6 
3:7 4:13 
3:7-19 
4:3-13 
4:14-16 
5:I—10:18 
Sl —7s2o 
5:1-I0 


5:11—6:20 
7>3-28 
(fos 
7:4-10 


ἼΣΤΙ 20 


7:26-28 


10 HISTORICAL AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES 


2. The work of Jesus as High Priest ee TP ee 
a) Jesus a minister of the real tabernacle in heaven . 8:2, 2 
b) His offerings and service more excellent, being based 
on the better covenant prophesied by Jeremiah . 8:3-13 
c) Contrast of tabernacles and covenants . . . . g:1-28 
1) Theearthly tabernacle . . . . See Q:I-I0 
2) Christ’s service in the heavenly Diverse sh Q: 11-14 
3) The better covenant and the better sacrifice. . g:15-28 
d) Effectiveness and finality of Christ’s sacrifice in 
cleansing the conscience and bringing men to God 10: 1-18 
IV. Exhortation and warning . . Ὁ IOSEO— aaa 
1. Exhortation to assurance, senda tices, ana mutual 
helpfulness . . ΤΕ ai 10: 19-25 
2. Wilful sin will bean sorer a ieeneene apy 10: 26-31 
3. Reminder of past distress and struggle and eetoreation ie 
patient continuance Zul VOSS ATER ΤΥ them care Winkel ts 10: 32-39 
4. Exhortation to faith . . . SR: τ τ; πῇ 
a) Historical review of the results int faith ὌΝ, ον 11:1-40 
b) Exhortation to similar faith and patience under the 
chastening of God . . . 12:1-13 
c) Exhortation to mutual ΤΈΡΕΝ ἐν ἜΑΡ helpiainees 12:14-17 
5. Solemn warning based on a final contrast of Old and New 12:18-29 
V. Sundry practical exhortations a Ras EEN fy Ct eka RS 13:1-19 
ne MESETIECIGLOM MAMIE ies eS tile PR oa ΡΝ OR Pa 13:20, 21 
NPRESTerancluSIOn’ sr Ue! Se OC ALS Wath “al (ah Ce aaa 13:22. 285 


II. INTRODUCTION TO THE EPISTLE 


The Epistle to the Hebrews, from many points of view, is one of the 
most remarkable and virile pieces of writing in the New Testament. From 
the literary point of view it stands supreme in the New Testament as 
the work of a conscious literary artist. This holds true even if we are 
not ready to go as far as von Soden’ in attributing to the writer conscious 
and precise conformity to the rhetorical laws of Greek literary construc- 
tion. In any case it is clear that the writer is perfectly at home in his 
use of the Greek language. It is vain to attempt to show that this 
epistle is a translation from Hebrew or Aramaic. If the author was 
himself a Jew, as seems altogether likely, he nevertheless had a thorough 
training in the use of Greek, for he has given us the best exhibition of 
good Greek in the New Testament. 


= Handcommentar zum Neuen Testament, ‘‘Einleitung zu Hebrier,” V, 5. το. 
336 


THE CHRISTOLOGY OF THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS 11 


The effort to establish the identity of the author is probably ἃ 
hopeless one. Fortunately the epistle itself enables us to gain a suffi- 
ciently clear and full picture of his personality and attitude. The case 
is somewhat the same with the readers. A full discussion of questions of 
introduction is not required here. It is only necessary to give a general 
statement with emphasis upon matters which have a bearing upon 
the Christology. 

The terminus ad quem of the epistle is fortunately fixed about 95 
A.D. by its evident use in Clement Ad Cor. 1, which was written about 
96 A.D. Unfortunately the terminus a quo is not so certain, though 
according to the view here held there are various converging lines of 
evidence which point to 85 to 90 A.D. It must, however, be admitted 
that so far as specific statements go, the earlier date 65 to 70 A.D. is not 
impossible. The letter itself shows us that the writer and his readers 
belong to the second generation of Christians (2:3, 4). Their conversion 
lies considerably in the past (5:12). They have passed through one 
severe persecution, apparently shortly after their conversion (10:32), 
and, whether literally interpreted or not, “resisted unto blood” (12:4) 
implies that they are in the throes of another persecution in the face of 
which they are not manifesting the enthusiastic, courageous spirit which 
they manifested in the former persecution (12:12). 

There is too great a tendency, in fixing dates by persecutions, to 
consider only the definite and widespread persecutions of the Roman 
government, viz., those of Claudius, Nero, Domitian, and Trajan. 
There may have been other persecutions, not merely local but compara- 
tively widespread, in addition to the historical persecutions of the Roman 
government known to us. But in the case of the readers of this epistle, 
it seems very natural to consider the first persecution mentioned, to be 
the one under Nero (64 A.D.). This would fit nicely the date of their 
conversion (2:3; 10:32), while the persecution under Domitian (81-96 
A.D.) would be the one in which the readers at present find themselves. 
Inasmuch as this persecution has not yet reached its height (12:4), one 
is inclined to place it in the earlier part of Domitian’s reign. It is 
impossible to consider the second persecution as that under Trajan 
(98-117 A.D.), for that would bring us beyond our terminus ad quem. 
These facts would lead us to place the epistle about 85 A.D., perhaps 
rather shortly after that date. 

Many still feel it an insuperable objection to any date after 70 A.D. 
that the writer should know of the destruction of Jerusalem with the 
cessation of all the sacrificial service of the temple and yet fail to clinch 

337 


12 HISTORICAL AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES 


his argument by reference to this great fact. And indeed such a passage 
as 8:4, which surely seems to imply that there are still those on earth 
who offer gifts according to the law, offers considerable difficulty. We 
know that such sacrificial service ceased after 70 A.D. That the old 
covenant and its institutions should be spoken of as “nigh unto dis- 
appearing” (8:13) presents the same difficulty. These and other 
similar references lead many to adopt the view that the epistle was 
written to warn the readers against lapsing back into Judaism and to 
place the epistle before 70 A.D. But the whole difficulty diminishes, 
even vanishes, if we remind ourselves repeatedly that the author’s whole 
thought revolves, not around the temple in Jerusalem, but around the 
tabernacle in the wilderness. It may indeed be that the reason for this 
was just the fact that the temple service was gone, but it is much more 
likely that it was because the author had nothing to do with the temple 
at Jerusalem. Philo went to Jerusalem only once, so far as we know.' 
It may be that our author never saw the temple. At any rate it is clear 
that the picture which fills his mind is not that of the temple but that 
of the tabernacle of Old Testament Scripture. Moreover the importance 
of the destruction of Jerusalem for the purpose of dating documents of 
the period has been exaggerated. It is an event that is not often referred 
to in contemporary literature. The Greeks once fined a playwright for 
making reference in his play to the destruction of the splendid city of 
Miletus 494 B.c. The Jews may have felt a similar reserve in regard to 
mentioning the destruction of Jerusalem. 

There are, on the other hand, references to Jerusalem which have 
more significance if the temple is destroyed (13:14). The present tenses 
which seem to be used of the temple sacrifices must be explained as 
historic presents. The verb in 8:136 is a present expressing a general 
truth, an inference from what precedes, and is understood by the author 
as applying to the Old Covenant when the quotation from Jeremiah was 
originally written. The difficulty of the statement in 8:4 is relieved at 
once when we keep to its context and notice that the writer is speaking of 
the tabernacle, not of the temple. 

As regards the readers and their situation, indications point perhaps 
most plausibly, all things considered, to Rome; though the church at 
Antioch might well be the recipient of the letter written from Rome or 
Italy (13:24). Too much, perhaps, has been made of the question as to 
whether the readers were Jews or gentiles. That the church or churches 
addressed were a unit does not necessarily mean, as Zahn contends, that 


t Philo, De Providentia, II, sec. 107. 
338 


THE CHRISTOLOGY OF THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS 13 


the membership consisted either of all Jews or all gentiles.t There was 
unity in the Antioch church before the Judaizers came and stirred up 
trouble between the Jews and the gentiles. So with the church at Rome 
to which Paul wrote. If, as we have suggested, we are to think of the 
letter as addressed to a church or churches in Rome we may possibly see 
in Hebrews a testimony to the success of Paul’s great Epistle to the 
Romans. The church was composed of Jews and gentiles, the latter 
predominating; and Paul wrote them chiefly with the purpose of fore- 
stalling some threatened Judaizing influence. His work here as else- 
where was successful and by the time Hebrews was written, possibly to 
the same church, the danger is over, the whole controversy has died 
down, and there is again no distinction between Jews and gentiles. 

If it be objected that general statements in the letter can refer only 
to gentiles (3:12; 5:12; 6:1ff.; 9:14), it may be replied that the 
difficulty is relieved by two considerations, viz., that the majority of 
readers were gentiles, and also that it is altogether likely that even the 
Jews among them were inclined to fall back into a state of materialistic 
and formal irreligion rather than back to their former faith. There 
were different types of Jews, especially among those of the Dispersion; 
and it is altogether natural that those in this church should fall into 
careless discouragement when they found that their new venture into 
Christianity was not fulfilling expectations. At any rate it is clear from 
the epistle that the author, who is thoroughly aware of their situation, 
fears, not the attractive power of any definite form of religion, but 
rather the subtle power of unbelief, indifference, and formalism. The 
whole weight and wording of his warnings is against a negative rather 
than a positive danger, against neglect (2:3), against losing their ‘“‘bold- 
ness and boasting” (3:6), against an ‘‘evil heart of unbelief” (3:12) 
and the “‘deceitfulness” of sin (3:13), this latter phrase implying that 
they might find themselves in the fatal situation without being themselves 
aware of it. 

Their danger was, in a measure, like that against which the ancient 
prophets thundered, the danger of being content to have the form of 
godliness without the power thereof. Therefore the exhortation to 
hold fast the beginning of their confidence firm unto the end (3:14, 15) 
as the essential condition of really being partakers of the Christ. With 
this agrees the rebuke of their backward and imperfect state in the 


t Zahn, Introduction to the New Testament, I1, 349. The discord in the Corinthian 
church was not at all racial; and per contra, at the time of the writing of Hebrews 
racial differences need not cause discord. 


339 


14 HISTORICAL AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES 


digression (5:11—6:20). So the exhortation (10:19 ff.) is full of 
thoughts which are naturally directed against listlessness, indifference, 
and neglect. In 10:29 the attitude pictured is one of neglect and 
despite of the grace received, and the warning of 10:31 would not be 
well directed to faithful observance of legalistic Judaism. It is rather a 
judgment on irreligion and godlessness. In fact the exhortations and 
warnings of the whole epistle (6:11, 12; 10:35, 36, 39), while they cer- 
tainly imply a falling away from Christianity, imply little or nothing as 
to any positive form of religion which attracts the readers. 

The warning of 13:9 ff. is perhaps an exception to this, in that the 
Christian readers seem to be attracted by some form of sacrificial meals 
which they think will strengthen their religious life but which the author 
feels are worthless for that purpose and have no place in Christianity. 
In this passage it is quite unnatural to make the “‘they”’ of vs. το denote 
the same persons as the “‘we’”’ of the same verse, viz., Christian believers. 
The verse must be accepted as indicating some relation, however indirect 
(‘‘strange,”’ vs. 8), between the meats which are attractive to the 
readers and the Jewish customs. Even this would not necessitate the 
assumption of Jewish readers, for the propaganda of Hellenistic Judaism 
exerted just such a counter-attraction to Christianity over gentiles. 
But granted that it requires Jewish readers, this does not interfere with 
the thesis above expressed, viz., that the warnings indicate the main 
danger of the readers to be listlessness, formalism, lax morality, in fact 
a general religious criminal negligence without any special attention being 
paid to whether they are Jews or gentiles. 

The contrast with Paul’s Epistle to the Galatians is marked in that 
in the latter the defection is a positive one to a positive form of teaching 
clearly revealed in the epistle itself. The cause of the defection in 
Hebrews is in the main evidently twofold, viz., persecution both more 
intense (12:3 ff.) and less intense (13:13), and disappointment in the 
hopes that they had entertained in embracing Christianity (6:13-20; 
10:25; 10:36; 12:1). Trying outward circumstances, combined with the 
failure of the lapse of years to bring the good things promised in Christ, 
had evidently made them secretly or openly question whether Christianity 
really contained that which could adequately reward such sacrifice and 
suffering.* 

It is to meet this grave tendency to formalism, materialism, irreligion, 
and atheism that the author writes this epistle. He has been with them 
or at least has known their circumstances from the first. For some 

τ: McGiffert, The A postolic Age, 1903, p. 469. 

340 


THE CHRISTOLOGY OF THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS 15 


reason he is now separated from them. But the need is so urgent and 
their situation so grave that, though he expects to return to them soon 
in person, he must write this word of exhortation (13:22) to arrest their 
threatened defection. And it is here that the christological significance 
of the epistle becomes evident. For the author feels that the grave 
situation, their threatened defection, is in a large measure due to their 
own ignorance of the glory, power, and finality of their Christian pro- 
fession. They do not fully comprehend that which they have professed 
—its significance, its grandeur, its supremacy, its finality. And the sum- 
total of all this supreme significance of their profession is found in Jesus 
Christ, the Son of God who is High Priest forever after the order of 
Melchizedek. The whole epistle is an exposition of the mediatorial 
work of Christ based upon the supreme significance of his person. 

It is tempting but futile to continue speculation upon the identity of 
the author. Some modern writers think favorably of Barnabas.t For 
Luther’s famous suggestion of Apollos it can at least be said that 
Apollos could very well have written it; there is no evidence whatever 
that he actually did write it.2 For the purpose of this study, it is not 
necessary to determine the identity of the author. 

It is well however to get a clear conception of the writer’s training 
and attitude of mind, and so to speak, of the general climatic conditions 
of thought which could produce such a writing. It is clear that the 
author has been under Philonian influence more than any other New 
Testament writers This marks him off with more or less distinctness 
from those with whom his teaching has a certain amount of agreement.‘ 
It does not mean that the author must have been an Alexandrian in the 
sense of having lived or even having received his training there. But he 
was a more or less technical disciple of Philonian views and methods 
before his conversion to Christianity. It is to be noted, however, that 
Alexandrianism was a part of the general religious milieu of the time to 
a greater degree than has hitherto been recognized. 

It is easy to make too much of real or alleged blunders in connection 
with his descriptions of Old Testament ritual. But there is, nevertheless, 
an element of uncertainty that suggests that the author gained his 
knowledge of Judaism by academic study. It was not altogether native 
to him. Philonian views and methods were native to him but his 
knowledge of both Judaism and Christianity came by earnest continued 


t Ayles, Goodspeed. 3 Ibid., p. 478. 
2 McGiffert, op. cit., p. 480, ἢ. 2. 4 Paul and the primitive church. 
341 


10 HISTORICAL AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES 


study and meditation. It will be shown in detail later that the author — 
was also influenced, at least indirectly, by elements from the mystery- 
religions of his time. If a Jew, as is likely, he was a Jew of the Disper- 
sion, not a Palestinian Jew. 

Where, outside of Palestine, could such an author have written such 
a writing? Possibly in Alexandria, but more likely in Asia Minor or 
Syria where the Christian movement secured such a strong foothold. 
The atmosphere here was strongly Philonian. Rome is the most 
plausible destination, but there is nothing incongruous in supposing the 
church at Antioch to be the recipient of the letter. Perdelwitz combines 
the two.? 

To sum up, the Epistle to the Hebrews was written ca. 85 A.D. by 
an anonymous writer, probably a Jew of the Dispersion, who, before his 
conversion, had had a more or less technical training in Alexandrian 
philosophy and had been a careful student of classic Judaism. He 
writes probably to a church or section of a church in Rome, but possibly 
to the church at Antioch or to some other church in Syria or Asia Minor. 
This church is composed probably of both gentiles and Jews, the former 
predominating, but there are no signs of division within the church 
itself. They have become disheartened, however, through hopes 
deferred and because of renewed persecution, and they are ready to fall 
back into empty formalism or into actual repudiation of their Christian 
profession. The author writes to call them back to their first faith and 
enthusiasm, and as a means to this end he sets forth the supreme great- 
ness and glory of Christ, the Son of God, and of the salvation which he 
has brought to them. 


II. GENERAL DOCTRINAL VIEWS AND FRAMEWORK 


A brief discussion of the general method and doctrinal content of the 
epistle is necessary to an adequate understanding of its Christology. 
From the theological no less than from the literary point of view the 
Epistle to the Hebrews is one of the most thoroughly and consciously 
artistic of all the New Testament writings. From the literary point of 
view this is made manifest not only by the writer’s splendid diction, his 
play upon words, and the general rhythmic movement of his language, 
but also by the dignity and even sublimity of his thought. The letter 


1 McGiffert, op. cit., p. 481. 
2 Das literarische Problem des Hebrierbriefs,” Z.f.N.T.W., 1910, S. 59, 105. 
3 Von Soden in Handcommentar zum N.T., “Einleitung zu Hebrier,” IV. 

342 


THE CHRISTOLOGY OF THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS 17 


reveals a carefully constructed plan with skilful transitions and judicious 
insinuations of words and anticipations of ideas. 

But his general theological attitude is that which is of importance in 
this connection. It is to be noted first of all that the letter is not in any 
sense an exhaustive theological treatise. It manifests some traits which 
are somewhat puzzling and which incline many to think that it is a 
treatise or homily rather than a letter. But it bears the marks of a 
genuine letter to people with whom the writer had been closely associated 
and in whom he was personally interested. It is therefore eminently 
practical. Certain great doctrinal features stand out clearly in the 
epistle, though the letter does not furnish a complete presentation of 
Christianity as the writer conceived it. There are many gaps, much 
that is assumed, and the doctrinal ideas that are presented are such as 
contribute to the intensely practical purpose of the writer. 

Though Alexandrian in training, the author has a somewhat elaborate 
eschatology that is in general harmony with that of the early Christians. 
The writer considers himself and his readers to stand at the close of one 
of the great periods or ‘‘aeons”’ of the world’s history (1:2) and to be 
looking forward to the second great period or “‘aeon”’ which is imminent 
and which will be ushered in at the parousia of Christ (10:25, 37). 
Between these two great periods are what seem to be days of transition, 
the end of the one period and the beginning of the next, days which the 
rabbis called the ‘‘days of the Messiah” before the messianic kingdom 
proper. These last days are the period of trial and persecution for the 
readers and believers, and the whole purpose of the writer is directed 
toward strengthening them for these days until the better days of the 
second period shall have fully set in. 

In this second period occurs the judgment of God which looms large 
and terrible in the vision of the writer. In one passage the judgment is 
put after death (9:27), but not necessarily immediately after death. 
The general judgment is evidently put at the inauguration of the second 
period immediately after the coming of Christ. The faithful and 
obedient pass into full salvation, the realization and enjoyment of the 
promises; the neglectful and disobedient into destruction (10:39; cf. 
2:3; 5:9; 6:9; 11:40). This judgment is final (6:2). It is repeatedly 
ascribed to God (10:30, 31; 12:9; 12:23), though the writer’s method 
of ascribing an act to God (2:10) and again to Christ (1:10) or to Christ 
under God (1:26) does not absolutely forbid the thought of Christ 
having charge of judgment under God. Of the intervening state of the 
faithful who have died the writer says nothing definitely, though he 

343 


18 HISTORICAL AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES 


implies that they are in some sort of close association with God and Jesus 
and the angels (12:23). In life, the faithful not only anticipate but in 
large measure realize by faith the salvation which comes in its fulness 
only after the second coming of Christ. 

As the old and the new revelations, though different, are yet one 
(1:1, 2), so the old and the new are also one in that the good things 
brought by Christ are conceived as another, a new covenant. This new 
- covenant has come in God’s good time according to promise (1:2; 8:8, 
13). Itis better than the old in every way, its superiority being pictured 
under the Platonic-Philonic concept of type and reality. The old was 
but shadow, the new is substance. The old was type, the new is reality. 
The old was earthly, the new is heavenly. And this superiority belongs 
to the new covenant all through. It had a superior priesthood in Jesus 
who was High Priest after the order of Melchizedek. It had a superior 
law, written upon the heart. It had a superior sacrifice, even the 
perfect, final, and effective sacrifice of Jesus himself in his voluntary death. 
It had the perfect sanctuary, not of this world but in heaven itself in 
the very presence of God. It may be, though this is hardly likely, that 
the writer considered the old covenant with all its ceremonies and 
ordinances as in every particular typical and in everything having its 
real fulfilment in Christianity, the new covenant. 

While the old covenant, because of its weakness and imperfection, 
failed to accomplish its real purpose—forgiveness of sins and true 
fellowship between God and his covenant people—Christianity, the new 
covenant mediated by Jesus, secures this very thing, namely, full and 
final forgiveness, cleansing of the conscience, entrance into the very 
presence of God, and finally perfection and participation in God’s own 
Sabbath rest. This is the ‘eternal salvation” (5:9) which is due to 
Jesus as its cause and is often spoken of as an inheritance, as inheriting 
the promises (6:17; 9:15). The chief thought of the epistle, however, 
is that of Jesus as eternal High Priest who mediates this covenant and 
secures this salvation to those who come to God through him (7:25). 
The writer fails to make quite clear the picture he gives of the future age 
after the parousia of Christ. At times he seems to conceive it locally 
and materially (2:5) as a renovated earth (12:27); again as the kingdom 
of abiding spiritual reality (12:28), the heavenly Jerusalem (12:22). It 
is likely that the blending of the two ideas did not seem incongruous: 
to him. 

The virtues of the Christian life are faith, hope, love, fidelity, 
obedience, patience, and hospitality. Most prominent in the writer’s 

344 


THE CHRISTOLOGY OF THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS 19 


presentation are faith and obedience. These are considered as the 
essential conditions, and yet not as the purchase price of salvation. 
They are closely related in the writer’s thought, in fact, are almost 
interchangeable. Faith is the anticipatory realization of the unseen 
and invisible which impels to obedience and endurance (11:1). 

The universal fatherhood and sovereignty of God are emphasized in 
the epistle (12:9). Jesus as Son is heir of all things, but always under 
God. He is victor over death and the devil, as the deliverer of his 
people (2:15); himself the great shepherd of the sheep raised from the 
dead by God (13:20). But the chief picture of Jesus’ person, character, 
and work is presented in the description of him as High Priest of the new 
order, a picture drawn on the background of Judaism. 

It is thus clear that the comparison with Judaism is fundamental in 
the presentation of the writer, not only because he is firmly convinced 
that the roots of this new faith are found in Judaism, but also because 
for the people among whom he moved and for whom he wrote—whether 
Jew or gentile—Judaism was accepted without dispute as supreme in 
the realm of religion. Only Christianity could be compared to it; but 
as the writer compares them it is clear that not only is Christianity, the 
new covenant, far better—it is the perfect and final fulfilment of Judaism. 
It is the final religion of which Judaism was only a shadow or symbol. 
And it is here that the peculiar world-view of the writer comes to his aid. 
He is an Alexandrian, steeped in the ideas and phraseology of that school, 
probably before his conversion a more or less technical disciple of that 
school. With the utmost ease and naturalness he does what every 
Christian thinker and preacher does, viz., runs the content of his new 
Christian experience into the forms of his own training and thinking. 
One of these Alexandrian thought-forms was the contrast of the 
“intelligible” and the “perceptible”? world, the world of ideas and the 
world of sense, the world of the eternal and permanent, and the world of 
the temporal and passing, the world of the unseen perfect realities and 
the world of the visible imperfect copies. Using this familiar Alexandrian 
contrast, the writer puts the stamp of perfection and finality upon 
Christianity by identifying it with the “intelligible” world of abiding 
ideas and realities. The new religion of Jesus is supreme, perfect, final, 
eternal, and that which makes it the final religion is the person (i.e., 
order, rank) and work of Jesus Christ. Though this thought-content is 
cast in a philosophical mold it is clearly the product not of his philosophy, 
but of his own Christian experience and that of his fellow-Christians. 


345 


I. HUMAN ELEMENTS IN THE CHRIST-CONCEPTION OF 
THE EPISTLE 


I. THE WRITER’S KNOWLEDGE OF THE HISTORICAL JESUS 


In considering the christological material proper, the first question 
that naturally arises is that which relates to the nature and extent of the 
writer’s knowledge of the historical Jesus. It is clear that the writer 
considers Jesus to be the Messiah and that he holds to the Palestinian 
eschatological conception of the division of time into ages or aeons made 
by the coming of the Messiah. This would not be conclusively shown 
by his frequent use of the phrases ‘‘unto the aeon”’ and “unto the aeons 
of aeons”’ (13:21) which might be general expressions meaning “forever.” 
But that the author did hold to the messianic eschatological division of 
time is shown by such expressions as “‘the coming aeon.” It is shown 
also by the phrase with which he describes God’s message as given in a 
Son compared with that given long ago in the prophets, the phrase “at 
[the] end of these days.” This phrase denotes the period of Jesus’ life 
and teaching while he was on earth, that which is called today the period 
of his public ministry. The phrase is a thoroughly Jewish one and 
reveals an element in the writer that is distinct from his Philonian 
tendency, for it is decidedly messianic in its tone. It represents the 
viewpoint especially of later Judaism, though similar conceptions are 
common in the Septuagint. There is the αἰὼν otros, “this age,” set 
sharply over against the αἰὼν μέλλων, “[the] coming age.” The “days 
of the Messiah” are evidently conceived as falling, partly at the 
end of “this aeon”’ and partly at the beginning of the “coming aeon,”’ 
but the appearance of the Messiah is regularly placed at the end of 
“this aeon.” The phrase ἐπ᾽ ἐσχάτου τῶν ἡμερῶν, “at [the] last of the 
days” (or its equivalent), which in the Old Testament is regularly 
used to denote future time, comes to refer generally in late Judaism and 
the New Testament to the closing of “this age.’”’ The writer, therefore, 
makes free to add τούτων, thus making the reference to this age more 
emphatic. The expression, then, denotes the same as ἐπὶ συντελείᾳ 
τῶν αἰώνων (9:26), found in the Synoptic Gospels. It is also equiva- . 
lent to καιρὸς διορθώσεως (9:10), “time of reformation.” All of 
these terms denote the period of Christ’s life, ministry, death, and 
exaltation. 


20 [346 


THE CHRISTOLOGY OF THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS 21 


It may be said here that the writer does not distinguish sharply 
between the “last of these days” and the ‘‘age to come.’”’ But the 
distinction is fundamental with him nevertheless. The world to come is 
the theme of his epistle (2:5). The old covenant belongs to “this age,”’ 
the new covenant to the “ρὲ to come.” But the ‘age to come”’ is 
initiated by the first appearance of Jesus and consummated by his 
second appearance (9: 286). This consummation at the second appear- 
ance of Christ is the ‘‘day”’ that is approaching (10:256). This word 
“‘approaching” has, probably, a larger content than temporal, and 
indicates the pressure of the powers of the “ρὲ to come”’ into the “last 
of these days’’ (6:5). There are, then, only two clearly defined periods 
in the world-view of the writer, “this age” and “the age to come.”” But 
the powers of the “age to come”’ are in a measure manifested and real- 
ized in the present. The “last of these days” is at once the close of 
“this age’’-and the beginning of the “age to come.”” And the “‘age to 
come,’’ when consummated at the second appearing of Christ, is the 
inhabited world that is to be (1:6), or the heavenly Jerusalem (12:22). 

The phrase “αἱ the end of these days”’ (1:2), therefore, denotes the 
time then present to the writer but as evidently goes back to, and 
includes, the period of the ministry and teaching of Jesus. But all that 
the introductory verse tells us is that in these final and momentous days, 
as contrasted with the days of old, God spoke a message in a Son, later 
in the epistle identified with Jesus (2:9), who as representative man 
suffered humiliation in his death and, being made perfect by these suf- 
ferings, was exalted to his present estate because of them. In these 
verses the fact of the death of Jesus and the sufferings in connection 
therewith are doubtless in the writer’s mind but are not in any way 
historically described. The death of Jesus, however, is the supreme 
act, as we learn not only from this passage but from many other passages 
in the epistle. 

Of more weight for this section is the view of the writer as to what 
was necessary that this supreme act of sacrifice in death might be effected 
and thus death and its master, the devil, be subdued and the children 
of God delivered. This was, that Jesus himself should share in flesh 
and blood as did the children whom he would deliver. For it is the 
conception of the writer that the deliverer must be altogether like those 
whom he would save. Strictly speaking, however, these are not refer- 
ences to the historical Jesus but rather an exposition of how the writer 
conceived and explained to himself and his readers the genuine humanity 
of Jesus. We have here indeed the conception of the writer that Jesus 

347 


22 HISTORICAL AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES 


was a being who did thus condescend to participate in flesh and blood, 
i.e., in genuine human nature. 

The writer in no way attempts to explain fow this participation in 
full human nature came to be. But this should not lead us to discount 
or doubt what he here plainly means to state, viz., that this Jesus was 
not a ghost or angel, for it was not with ghosts or angels that he had to 
do but with men who should become his followers (2:16). He therefore 
also shared in, took part in, this genuine human nature with all that it 
essentially involved of suffering and temptation in order that he might 
be qualified to deliver men. The author has the conception of a being, 
in part at least, developing under the strain of hard experience. The 
result of this experience was a genuine sympathy with men in their 
weaknesses, and an ability to minister seasonable help to those in distress. 

But a more decided reference to the events of the life of Jesus is 
found in 5:7—10, ‘‘who in the days of his flesh,” etc. This is a distinct 
reference to the historical life of Jesus, specifically to his experience in 
the Garden of Gethsemane. The phrase, “with strong crying and 
tears,’ while not at all out of harmony with the account of Mark and 
Matthew, throws much more emphasis upon a natural human weakness 
on the part of Jesus. This additional emphasis may possibly be due to 
the author himself, but much more likely it is a variant from oral tra- 
dition which seems to ring true to the actual behavior of Jesus in 
Gethsemane. In either case it is a touch which puts striking emphasis 
upon the author’s view of the genuine humanity of Jesus. The rest of 
the description likewise puts emphasis upon the truly human and 
submissive aspect of Jesus’ attitude in this crisis, in order to emphasize 
the point of the preceding verses, viz., that Jesus did not take this office 
of High Priest to himself but was called to it by God. The attitude of 
the devout, God-fearing man is ascribed to him in the phrase “having 
been heard for his godly fear.’”’ This seems to be the best and most 
natural meaning to give to this phrase and it need not call for anything 
more by way of an answer to his prayer than is implied in the Matthew 
and Markan accounts where Jesus is finally strengthened to say “Thy 
will be done.” 

The whole picture of this section is so characteristically that of a 
devout, God-fearing man in the midst of suffering and trial, that the 
writer feels constrained to add that “‘although he was a Son” he thus 
suffered and learned obedience by what he suffered. The writer was 
quite conscious of the hiatus between this picture of a devout, praying, 
tempted, God-fearing man and the conception of a Son to whom one 

348 


THE CHRISTOLOGY OF THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS 23 


would expect obedience to be natural, and not require such arduous 
discipline and suffering for its development. This phrase, “even 
though being a Son,” in this particular context shows plainly that the 
author applies the word Son to Jesus as he would not and does not 
apply it to men in general or to any other created beings. Suffering is 
the common lot of men. It is the means of learning obedience for all 
Christians (12: 4ff.), but the strange thing is that it is also fitting and 
necessary even for Jesus, a Son. It is just this submission and victory 
in and through this experience of suffering that makes him efficient in his 
work as Savior and High Priest and causes God to address him as such. 
As to the manner in which the Son partook of flesh and blood, the 
writer has nothing specific to say. His statement that it is evident our 
Lord sprang out of Judah (7:14) may only echo the common tradition 
of the church independently of the question as to whether this descent 
is traced-through Joseph or Mary. It can hardly be used as evidence 
that Mary was of David’s line, nor can it be used to prove that the 
author held the doctrine of the miraculous conception. The author 
refers to Jesus’ coming into the world (10:5) by quotation of Ps. 40:6-8, 
“Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body didst thou prepare 
for me.” The writer is here following the Septuagint, as he regularly 
does. This gives him an entirely different thought from that of the 
original Hebrew, ‘‘mine ears hast thou pierced’’; but this need cause no 
difficulty as it is the writer’s own thought that is being considered. The 
words evidently denote for him the incarnation of Jesus. It might be con- 
sidered that this phrase favored the miraculous conception, but it would 
surely be pressing the words too far to say that they demand this view. 
In fact the words might be used of anyone by one who holds the doctrine 
of pre-existence, as the speaker in Wisdom of Solomon says (8:19, 20): 
“Nay rather, being good, I came into a body undefiled,” although he 
had just said (7:2): ‘And in the womb of my mother was I moulded 
into flesh in the time of ten months, being compacted in blood of the 
seed of man,” etc. It cannot be said, therefore, that the writer of 
Hebrews anywhere reveals how he conceived the incarnation to have 
taken place. This may be considered as an argument so far forth that 
he thought of it as perfectly normal. In any case it is this body which 
has been prepared for him by God which makes possible his offering and 
sacrifice (10:10), which in turn leads to sanctification. It is this body 
that is the veil, and the offering of it in death is the removal of the veil 
which opens the new and living way into the true holy place (10:20). 
It seems evident that although the writer is not concerned with the 
349 


24 HISTORICAL AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES 


earthly life and ministry and teaching of Jesus, he is nevertheless reliably 
informed about it (2:3) and sets a high value upon it. He speaks of the 
great salvation spoken first by the Lord himself. With him, as with 
Paul, it is not a question of ignorance but rather of emphasis and of the 
particular purpose in view. Where the events of Jesus’ life specially 
illustrate his purpose and his thought he shows his knowledge of them 
(5:7). It is true of course that this knowledge is not first-hand (2:3), 
but full weight should be given to the author’s statement that he pos- 
sessed good second-hand testimony. This passage however does not 
necessarily or even probably mean that the author was a personal 
companion of the apostles. The writer’s description of the course of 
events in the primitive church during the Apostolic age is an accurate 
one (2:4) judging it by other accounts. On the whole it would seem 
that the author has a fuller knowledge of the historic Jesus than he has 
occasion to manifest or use. His work is rather interpretative and 
theological. His interest centers about the sacrificial death and High- 
Priestly work of Jesus. 


II. HUMAN ELEMENTS IN HARMONY WITH HIS HISTORICAL KNOWLEDGE 


In advancing beyond actual events to consider what appear to be 
genuinely human elements ascribed to the character of Jesus by the 
writer, there is found an emphasis quite beyond that of Paul in the same 
sphere. Indeed, it may be said that in appreciation of human character 
and its development in the midst of work and suffering the writer of 
Hebrews is far in advance of other New Testament writers with the 
possible exception of the synoptists. 

There are some passages in the epistle which, while evidently based 
on some knowledge of the historical Jesus, at the same time exhibit a 
development toward the speculative or theological, yet without going 
beyond human characteristics. Such, for instance, is the call to consider 
the patient endurance which Jesus manifested in the face of the senseless 
and inconsistent opposition at the hands of his opponents, called sinners 
(12:3). The writer evidently has in mind more particularly the actions 
of the rulers, the people, and probably the Roman soldiers in connection 
with Jesus’ trial and crucifixion. The word “such” of vs. 3 points back 
naturally to “endured the cross, despising the shame” of vs. 2. But 
the point to be noted is that the human attribute of patient endurance 
in the face of exasperating opposition against righteousness is here 
emphasized. It is a characteristic of Jesus’ attitude under persecution 
which is held up as an example to the readers. 

350 


THE CHRISTOLOGY OF THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS 25 


The thoughts in 12:2 are similar. There are a number of difficulties 
in this verse which touch vital points. The chief cause of difference of 
opinion is as to whether these statements apply to Jesus in his earthly 
life or to the Son in his pre-existent state. One is tempted with the 
older interpreters (and indeed some of the latest; cf. von Soden, Good- 
speed) to take this passage as a parallel in substance and color to Paul’s 
famous statement in Phil. 2:6 and perhaps the original and natural 
meaning of ἀντί, viz., ‘‘instead οἵ," would seem to favor this view. 
But it is against this view that no such thought is found elsewhere in the 
epistle, and its occurrence here, while not inconsistent with the author’s 
view of Jesus, seems strange and the interpretation which finds it here 
is very likely the result of the widespread influence of the Pauline passage 
and possibly of the view of Pauline authorship. This is the more likely 
in that, while the context in the Philippian passage leaves no doubt as 
to the reference being to the pre-existent Christ, the context in the 
Hebrews passage is decidedly against such a reference. In both passages 
Jesus (Phil. 2:6, “Christ,” “Christ Jesus”) is presented as an example 
—in the Philippian passage as an example of splendid self-denial and 
sacrifice, in the Hebrews passage as an example of patient endurance in 
the face of persecuting opposition and ridicule. But it is just this 
difference that turns the scale in favor of reference to the earthly life of 
Jesus in the Hebrews passage. The whole exhortation is to patient 
endurance as exemplified in the attitude of Jesus in the midst of his 
trying earthly experiences (cf. vs. 3 which is closely connected with the 
previous verse by “‘for’’). It may be answered that this might still be 
true with the view which refers the “joy” to the preincarnate life of 
Jesus. But such reference to a “joy” of the preincarnate life would at 
least be a disconcerting thought detracting from the real point of the 
exhortation. It is therefore more natural to translate ‘‘ because of the 
joy that was set before him” and interpret the “joy”’ to be that of the 
“crowning with glory and honor”’ with the sons whom he leads to glory 
with him. This view is favored, too, by the fact that while there are 
no parallels to the former view in the epistle, there are parallels to the 
latter, viz., 1:9 and 2:9. This, then, means that, in the view of the 
writer, the anticipated feeling of joy, the courage that endured the cross, 
the patience that bore contradiction, ridicule, and shame were all of 
them genuine human characteristics of the earthly Jesus which con- 
stituted him, quite above the heroes of faith enumerated in chap. 11, 
the supreme example to the sorely tempted readers of the epistle. 

But the secret of this much-needed endurance is faith and this again 

351 


20 HISTORICAL AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES 


is a true human quality characteristic of the earthly Jesus, and is 
expressed in this verse by “‘author and perfecter of faith’”’ and emphasized 
repeatedly by the writer throughout the epistle. It was by no divine 
magic, no mere “‘breath, turn of eye, wave of hand,” that he “joined 
issue with death,’ but by the power of that genuinely human faith 
which had inspired others in the past, faith in the characteristic sense of 
the writer (11:1) which is convinced of things unseen and gives sub- 
stance to things hoped for. This is another reason for translating the 
phrase ‘‘ because of the joy that was set before him,”’ since, so translated, 
it presents a splendid example of a high human faith in the writer’s 
characteristic sense which is entirely fitting in this context but which 
would be quite lost by the other translation. Faith is simply unwavering 
confidence in the hopes and promises that relate to the future. This it 
is that begets endurance in the hard lot of the present, and it was just 
this confidence in the joy that lay before him that enabled Jesus to bear 
the cross. This same faith is evident in the passage already considered 
(5:7-10), although faith is not there named. 

The writer, therefore, places Jesus in the same class in regard to 
faith as that in which all believers in God are placed (11:6; cf. 2:13). 
But the phrase of 12:2, “author and perfecter of faith,’’ puts Jesus, in 
another sense, in a class by himself as supreme exponent and example of 
this faith. The word translated “author” denotes primarily “chief 
leader”’ or “captain,” a use common in the Septuagint. But the word 
also shades readily into the idea of ‘‘author”’ or ‘‘cause.”” In 2:10 the 
context almost requires “‘captain”’ or “‘leader,’’ but not, perhaps, to the 
exclusion of ‘‘author”’ or “‘cause,”’ which latter would at any rate express 
an idea clearly held by the writer (5:9). In this passage (12:2), again, 
the context favors taking ἀρχηγός as “captain” or “leader,” i.e., in 
the sense of supreme example or exponent of faith as an active principle 
in human life. Since the idea of faith is so emphatic and characteristic 
in this writer, there is no adequate reason for giving the word faith in 
this passage any meaning (as, e.g., the Christian system) different from 
that in the rest of the epistle. It denotes here also that attitude of 
thought and life which confidently anticipates the future and realizes 
and acts in view of, the unseen. Of all the heroes of faith Jesus, though 
not the first in time, is the first in rank, the great exemplar, the supreme 
exponent of this attitude of faith. 

Closely related to this truly human characteristic of faith in Jesus is 
that of faithfulness or fidelity. To Moses and Jesus alike (3:2) this 
quality is assigned; but to Moses as servant (3:5), to Jesus as Son (3:6). 

352 


THE CHRISTOLOGY OF THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS 27 


This quality of faithfulness is also assigned to Jesus as High Priest (2:17), 
and with it is combined the quality of mercy (2:17), which the context 
shows is also attributed to him as a human acquirement, gained by his 
human experience. And on this last quality of mercy in its various 
shades the author lays great emphasis, in what appear at first sight to be 
two different ways but which really blend into one. Jesus is subject to 
suffering and temptation exactly (παραπλησίως, 2:14) as other men. 
This is described as having two objects in view, first, that he might become 
a merciful and faithful High Priest (2:17), the adjectives here used per- 
haps corresponding respectively to the verbs in another passage 
(συνπαθῆσαι, 4:15), “to sympathize,” and (μετριοπαθεῖν, 5:2), “to deal 
moderately or fairly”; secondly, that the captain of salvation might 
himself be perfected (2:10). 

It is probable, however, that these two apparently divergent results 
really blend, in that the perfecting of Jesus consists in the fact that 
through suffering and temptation he becomes a merciful and faithful 
High Priest and leader. But the notion of τελείωσις involves more 
than this. In 2:10 the context indicates that it denotes that condition 
which leads, dominates, and commands effectually. According to the 
psalm quoted, the dominion was promised to man. But man has not 
proved worthy of it, with the exception of Jesus who, though humbled 
for a season, through the very sufferings of his humiliation, has gained 
that perfection which secures or will secure to him this universal domin- 
ion. As an accompaniment or result of this high condition of perfection 
he is crowned with glory and honor. In 5:9 these two shades of the 
notion of perfection, viz., ability to save and inner worth or character, 
are more closely joined. It is held by many that τελείωσις denotes 
in this epistle only official perfection, i.e., ability to save men through 
sympathy. But to speak of Jesus as learning obedience from that 
which he suffered shows the conception of the development of a devout 
character of personal worth in relation to God. The passage 7:28 
further shows that this perfection denotes a condition of character which 
has become superior to and therefore now free from the weakness of the 
flesh that continually attends other men, even priests. This weakness, 
indeed, Jesus has shared in the days of his flesh (5:2, 7); and memory 
of experiences in it still abides with him (2:18) to give him sympathy 
and fairness (5:2; 4:15). But the state of perfection free from this 
weakness is ascribed to him, and he is therefore described in the terms of 
7:26 as “holy, guileless, undefiled, separated from sinners and made 


τ 50 A. B. Davidson, Hebrews, pp. 207 f.; cf. Perdelwitz, op. cit., S. 105 ἢ. 
353 


28 HISTORICAL AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES 


higher than the heavens,’ being perfected forevermore. This last 
passage indicates that, as will be shown later, there are elements from 
the mystery-religions, in the writer’s conception of perfection. 


11. GENERAL STATEMENT 


The above goes to support the statement that, with the possible 
exception of the synoptists, there is no other writing in the New Testa- 
ment which throws into such bold relief the human elements in the 
personality of Jesus. And it is a question whether the synoptists should 
be excepted. For they set out with the purpose of giving an account 
of the life and teaching of Jesus while on earth. It is therefore only 
natural that they should have a larger amount of the human element. 

The peculiar characteristic of the writer to the Hebrews is that he 
views character developmentally and applies this developmental view 
to the character of Jesus. The fact that the language of 5:14 refers 
rather to the discernment of true and false teaching does not alter the 
fact that the language and thought is Stoic and was generally used to 
refer to conduct and to the development of character. And the fact 
that the writer uses this language implies that he would hold the same 
view of development in character. The language is probably mediated 
to the writer through later Stoicism and through Philo.t At any rate 
this developmental view is the one that the writer presents of Jesus with 
an emphasis and an insight that is unusual in the New Testament. 


τ The language of 5:14 reminds one of the Stoic Wise Man; cf. Philo, Leg. Alleg., 
III, 64, p. 94 E; 83, p. 104 D; cf. Sanday, Christologies, Ancient and Modern, p. 180. 


954 


II. TRANSCENDENT ELEMENTS IN THE CHRIST- 
CONCEPTION OF HEBREWS 


I. THE THREE PERIODS IN JESUS’ CAREER 


Preparatory to a consideration of the transcendent elements in the 
Christ-conception of the writer of Hebrews, it may be well to present a 
survey of the writer’s conception of the total career of Jesus Christ. 

The author considers that there were two pivotal points in the total 
career of this person for whom his most common appellation is Jesus. 
The first of these is described as “‘sharing in flesh and blood” (an aorist 
tense), because his brethren whom he would save from the fear of death 
partook of these. It was, therefore, necessary that he be made like his 
brethren in all things (2:14, 17). Again this is referred to (10:5a) as 
coming “into the world,” and in the same verse it is described from the 
divine point of view in the words of Ps. 40:6 ff. which are interpreted 
messianically and therefore put in the mouth of Jesus as he is conceived 
to address God saying, “ἃ body didst thou prepare for me.” The author 
gives no hint as to how he conceived this incarnation to have taken 
place. It is simply stated as a pivotal point, a coming into the world, 
which doubtless means an entrance into this human life of men upon 
earth, the period spoken of as “the days of his flesh” (5:7). 

The second pivotal point in the career of this Jesus is one that cannot 
be so clearly defined, but which may best be stated as his entrance upon 
his exalted state, which is described as taking his seat at the right hand 
of God (1:13) by the command of God himself. This event in the 
career of Jesus is frequently mentioned in the epistle (10:12; 10:13; 
10:37; 12:2). Itis referred to as an entrance into the heavenly world 
(6:20), the real sanctuary (9:24), heaven itself, as the first is referred to 
as an entrance into this world, this earthly life (το: κα). Closely associ- 
ated with this event, though not identical in point of time, are the death 
(το: 124), resurrection (13:20a@), ascension (4:14@), and anointing of 
Jesus (τ: οὐ). 

In addition to these two pivotal points, there are other events in the 
career of Jesus less definitely indicated. How, for instance, did the 
writer conceive Jesus to have been or to have become the Son of God? 
In 1:5 and 5:5 the author seems to consider the person Jesus to have 
been at a certain fixed time constituted and hailed Son by God. Not to 
355] 29 


90 HISTORICAL AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES 


any of his fellows, the angels (1:95), did God ever address such words; 
but to this person called Jesus he said, “Thou art my Son, I today have 
begotten thee, and again, I will be to him a Father and he shall be to me 
a Son.” But the author does not enable us to discern clearly when that 
time was. It must be inferred from 5:8 that Jesus was considered Son 
during his earthly period and therefore the reference can hardly be to 
his resurrection (as in Rom. 1:4) or to his exaltation. There is no evi- 
dence to show that these words contain a specific reference either to the 
eternal generation or to the incarnation. If they are not to be taken as 
denoting a fixed point at which Jesus was constituted and hailed Son by 
adoption it must simply be considered a highly figurative, rhetorical way 
of recognizing in time the Sonship of Jesus which the writer considers 
continual and timeless. This view might be taken without going so far as 
to say with von Soden that “today”’ in the writer’s mind actually denoted 
the timeless eternity of God. The writer’s eschatological division of time 
forbids giving this meaning to the word, especially in the discussion of the 
“rest of God”’ in the third and fourth chapters (cf. 3:13; 4:7). 

Another special point in the career of Jesus would seem to be indicated 
in 5:5 where it is said that the Christ did not glorify himself to become 
High Priest but rather that the honor of appointment came from God 
who had said to him, “Thou art my Son. I today have begotten thee’’; 
and who also said ‘‘Thou art a priest forever after the order of Mel- 
chizedek.”” But here again it does not seem that the writer concerns 
himself with being precise in regard to a time when Christ thus became 
High Priest. It must be recognized that the whole framework of Old 
Testament ritual, though viewed and set forth by the writer as proof of 
what he presents, is in reality only a fitting but imperfect and incom- 
plete illustration or analogy of what Jesus was and did. In other words, 
what is true of New Testament writers in general is especially true of the 
writer of Hebrews—they see Jesus in the Old Testament only ex post 
facto. There is something startling in the analogies, or at least in the 
impression made by their sum-total, and one may not lightly say that 
the author’s elaborate system of analogies between the old and the new 
covenants is only an ingenious patchwork. It is the same God who 
spake to the fathers in the prophets and who speaks at last in a Son 
(1:2). There isa genuine unity. But the point is, that what is primary 
with this writer, as with all the New Testament writers, is the impression 
of Jesus himself. The Old Testament is seen from the standpoint of 
the impression of Jesus; it is not Jesus that is seen from the standpoint 
of the Old Testament. 

356 


THE CHRISTOLOGY OF THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS 91 


For this reason it is plain that, to say nothing of the analogies not 
being proofs, many of them are imperfect and even misleading analogies. 
There need be nothing surprising in this. The surprise rather is that the 
author finds so much that contributes splendidly to the exposition of the 
new in the ritual of the old. But it would surely be unwise of us today 
to try to press the analogies farther than the author himself has pushed 
them. This many are inclined to do (e.g., Bruce) when they try to 
state a definite time at which Jesus became High Priest. The author 
perhaps has in mind that, as entrance into the Holiest was the great act 
of the Aaronic high priest, so Jesus when he passed through the heavens 
(4:14) and became manifested on men’s behalf in the very presence of 
God (9:24) entered upon his Priesthood. And most of what is said on 
this point in the epistle attributes his High-Priestly work to this stage 
(cf. 7:24; 8:3; 9:14). But the writer also considers him priest outside 
of this sphere (7:27; 9:14; 10:10), especially in offering himself once 
for all in death. It would seem therefore that it is forcing the author 
into too precise a consideration of time to compel him to say just when 
Jesus became High Priest. This and many other difficulties in inter- 
preting the Priesthood and High Priesthood of Jesus arise from forcing 
the typology of the epistle, from forgetting that in reality the typology 
is an illustration ex post facto and not a proof. In the view of the writer 
Jesus’ High-Priestly acts constitute him High Priest rather than any 
inauguration to his office at a specific time. 

Still one other point appears of signal importance in the career of 
Jesus, viz., that at which all his enemies are to be made the footstool of 
his feet. This is no doubt identical with the time of his second appear- 
ance in the world of men (1:6), which is also to be the point of time 
when the full salvation is brought in (9:28), when the full sabbatismos 
or rest of God is realized (4:9), when all the faithful of the old and the 
new covenants shall together realize the fulfilment of God’s promise of 
full perfection, delayed so long for the sake of those of the latter days 
(11:39, 40). The writer sees this day approaching (το: 250) and there- 
fore urges greater earnestness, diligence, and endurance; for in the words 
of Habakkuk the coming one will come quickly (10:37). Associated with 
the events of this time is the idea of the new heavens and the new earth 
so far as it is held by this author (12:26, 27), and the complete establish- 
ment of the kingdom of God, perfect and unchangeable (12:28, 29). This 
subordinate point of time, therefore, is one which the author presents with 
much more singleness and definiteness than either that of the acquire- 
ment of the Sonship or that of the acquirement of the Priesthood. 

357 


92 HISTORICAL AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES 


By the two pivotal points already indicated which we may call the 
incarnation and the exaltation, the career of Jesus as presented by the 
writer is divided into three definite states or stages which may be termed 
the period of pre-existence, the earthly period of the days of his flesh, 
and the period of exaltation. They might be termed technically, pre- 

‘incarnate, incarnate, and postincarnate. These are sharply defined 
but it is clear that the epistle considers them as different stages in the 
career of one and the same person. The most common name which the 
writer uses is the simple historical name Jesus, while the most exalted 
name is Son or Son of God, though these latter are titles rather than 
names. One would almost expect him to confine the use of the name 
Jesus to the period of the days of his flesh, but he does not do so. 

As to the preincarnate period it is stated of this person Jesus that he 
made the worlds (‘“‘aeons,”’ 1:2; 1:10 ff.), that he was the effulgence of 
God’s glory and the express image of his substance, that he sustained the 
universe by the word of his (God’s) power (1:3). That he was in the 
beginning is implied (1:10), and that the heavens and earth are transitory 
while he is unchanging and eternal is stated in 1:11, 12. In 2:11 it is 
implied that even in this preincarnate state he bore some special relation 
to men which (‘‘for which reason,’’ 2:11) constituted them, or at least 
led him to call them, brethren. And just because these brethren had 
their lot in flesh and blood he, too, partook of the same. But the reason - 
for this was that it was necessary in order to do for them that which he 
wanted to do or felt obliged to do just because, in his preincarnate state, 
there already existed a bond between them, since both sanctifier and 
sanctified were all of one (2:11) (as we might say, “‘all of a piece”). It 
is hardly satisfactory to the context and the general thought of the 
writer to take this, as most interpreters do, to denote that they have a 
common origin in God; for God, in the thought of the writer, is the 
common origin of all things (2:10)—angels, demons, men, and worlds. 
It is more likely that the phrase means “οἵ a piece,” for this harmonizes 
better both with the preceding and the following verses. The sanctifier 
and sanctified are all “οἱ a piece,” i.e., both the captain of salvation and 
the ‘‘sons” belong to the same company: they form a unit. The 
captain is not a foreign ruler imposed upon the company, but is one with 
them. And the three citations which follow (vs. 11) emphasize this 
same thought, viz., the community and identity of the captain with his 
company. If it be said that this community or identity is presented 
rather as holding good in the preincarnate state, even before being 
realized in the earthly period, it is perhaps best explained as being 

358 


THE CHRISTOLOGY OF THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS 33 


carried back in thought from the earthly period and applied to the pre- 
incarnate period though it does not strictly belong there. This is not 
an unusual thing in our writer. If it is still felt that this is not enough 
to account for the ascription of relationship in the preincarnate state, 
that relationship should be found in something more special than simply 
a common, otherwise undefined, origin from God. It might consist of 
the special relationship of “sons” (2:10), which is such as to exclude 
having anything to do with angels or other beings. It might hint at 
the common pre-existence of all souls. 

It is unnecessary to present again the material which is found in the 
writer concerning Jesus during the earthly period spoken of as “‘the days 
of his flesh.” This has already been fully presented under the headings 
of the writer’s knowledge of the historical Jesus and human elements 
in harmony with this knowledge. 

It remains to present the material coming under the third, the 
heavenly or exalted, state of Jesus. There is considerable vagueness 
with regard to the initial stages of this postincarnate period. The line 
between the postincarnate period and the earthly period is not clearly 
marked, there being a number of events that belong to both. There is, 
so to speak, a vestibule or entrance to the postincarnate period proper. 
To this vestibule belongs the great sacrificial act—the voluntary death 
(7:27); also the resurrection (13:20) and the ascension of Jesus (4:14), 
though the writer does not give a detailed description of them. Of the 
ascension, it is not certain that the author had such a conception as that 
which the writer of Acts gives, though the phrase “passed through the 
heavens”’ might naturally correspond (cf. 4:14; 9:24). Following this 
is the exaltation, which ushers in the postincarnate period. It is spoken 
of as an anointing (1:9), as being crowned with glory and honor (2:9), 
as sitting down at the right hand of God (1:13; 10:12). 

This is a solemn inauguration into the state which the writer con- 
siders supreme in Jesus’ career, the state of exaltation. It is the period 
in which Jesus exercises his real and efficient ministry. It is the impor- 
tant period for which the preceding period was but preparation. Positive 
activities are assigned to Jesus in the preincarnate period, viz., the 
creation of the world and the sustaining of it. And in the incarnate 
period he is spoken of as being the first to proclaim the salvation (2:3). 
But the emphasis on his activity in these periods is exceedingly slight. 
His real activity is in the postincarnate period. In this period he 
receives his inheritance (1:2). It is difficult-to say whether the words 
“the effulgence of his glory and the very image of his substance” apply 

359 


34 HISTORICAL AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES 


only to the preincarnate and postincarnate periods or cover his whole 
career. It is in this period of exaltation that his death is efficacious in 
delivering his followers from the fear of death (2:14, 15) and in their 
sanctification (10:10, 14). Though the author is indefinite as to the 
time of Jesus’ becoming High Priest, it is in this period, clearly, that he 
considers him as fully exercising his High-Priestly office (6:20; 7:28; 
8:1-3; 10:21) on behalf of men before God (9:24), in securing the 
forgiveness of sins committed under the old covenant (9:15), the cleans- 
ing of the conscience from dead works (9:14), and full and free access to 
God (4:16; 10:19). It is through his High-Priestly activity in this 
period that he brings to bear those qualities and capacities gained in the 
experiences of the earthly life by delivering from temptation (2:18), 
laying hold of men to help them (2:16), making propitiation for the sins 
of the people (2:17), and in being merciful and faithful (2:17; 3:1). 
In short, he is now the cause of eternal salvation to those who obey him 
(5:9) and is so continually and completely because he is now exercising 
as High Priest the power of an endless life (7:16, 24). To this period 
pre-eminently applies the statement that he, Jesus Christ, is the same 
yesterday, today, and forever (13:8). He is the mediator and sponsor 
of a better covenant (7:22; 12:24), the Apostle and High Priest of our 
confession (3:1), to whom believers must look as the supreme example 
and the author and perfecter of faith (12:2). 

It is during this period that Jesus waits (10:13) until his enemies be 
made the footstool of his feet (1:13). Just what is implied in this the 
writer does not say. But he evidently holds to a division of this period 
of exaltation by a definite time at which Jesus shall come again (9: 28). 
At this time all enemies shall have been subjected to him. With this 
time shall come the judgment, though this judgment is ascribed to God 
—not to Jesus (4:130; 6:7, 8; 10:30; 12:23, 25, 26, 29; 13:4). With 
it shall come what in our writer corresponds to the new heavens and the 
new earth of Paul, the shaking of the things that are superficial and 
transitory and the bringing in of the kingdom that cannot be shaken, 
the kingdom of abiding realities which belongs to believers (12:27). 
This is the ushering in of the full fruition of faith (11:39), the realization 
of the full salvation (9:28), the perfect rest of God long deferred (4:9). 
Though little is said as to Jesus’ position in this new world of perfect and 
abiding reality, it would appear that the best interpretation of 2:5 would 
make it subject to Jesus as heir of all things under God (1:2). This 
second part of the postincarnate period is conceived of as the final and 
eternal realization of the good things brought through Jesus (9:11; 10:1), 

360 


THE CHRISTOLOGY OF THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS 90 


of the completed house of God over which Jesus presides (3:6). It is 
the better thing of 11:39, viz., the united realization, on the part of all 
believers past and present, of the promise of God, not granted to the 
heroes of the old covenant in spite of their faithfulness, that all might 
enjoy it together. 

These three periods, preincarnate, incarnate, and postincarnate, 
constitute the career of Jesus, the latter period being divided by the 
second coming to inaugurate the kingdom which cannot be shaken. 
These are not progressive stages, though they are clearly stages in the 
career of one and the same person. It is remarkable how little is said 
that applies to the preincarnate stage. Yet what little is said is of such 
a high tenor that it forbids the conception that in his real character and 
nature this person experienced a continuous development from lower to 
higher or from imperfect to perfect. The writer, indeed, dwells much 
on the “perfecting” of Jesus through sufferings but this does not involve 
continuous progression through three periods. One who was the Son of 
God, through whom he made the worlds and probably the supporter of 
those worlds, the effulgence of God’s glory and impress of his substance 
in the preincarnate state, could not be conceived of as progressing through 
these three stages. Moreover, the earthly career of Jesus would render 
impossible such a conception. Such an exalted preincarnate condition, 
even though comparatively little is said about it, would compel the author 
to present the earthly period as one of humiliation. 

But the case is quite different when considered from the point of 
view of Jesus’ office and work, the preparation for it and the glory 
attending it. Here it would seem that the author wishes to give us the 
picture of progression. The earthly stage of his career is a humiliation 
to be sure, a diminishing in dignity as compared with the angels (2:9), 
but it is only for a short time and for a glorious purpose, viz., the bringing 
of many sons into glory. For this reason he too shared in flesh and 
blood as the rest of these sons. For this reason also it was eminently 
fitting that God should perfect him through suffering, that is, perfect 
him for the fulfilment of this high and glorious task. And it is the 
accomplishment of this high task in its full perfection that is the joy set 
before him (12:2), the gladness that he enjoys beyond his fellows (1:9). 
This is the kingdom which he inherits (1:2) as the permanent repre- 
sentative of God, for the author of Hebrews has no statement of 
Jesus’ giving up the kingdom to God such as characterizes Paul’s view. 

There is, therefore, a progress through these three stages, but it is 
in the career of Jesus rather than in his character and person. It is 

361 


36 HISTORICAL AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES 


true, however, that the experiences necessary to the fulfilment of his 
vocation reacted upon his character, calling forth and developing such 
genuinely human qualities as faith, fidelity, compassion, fair dealing 
(5:2), reverence (5:7), obedience (5:8), patient endurance (12:3), all of 
which, though viewed by the writer as qualities essential to the successful 
carrying out of his vocation, must at the same time have been viewed by 
him as noble human qualities as well. 


II. CHRIST AS SUPERIOR TO THE ANGELS AND MOSES 


In seeking to show the transcendent elements which enter into the 
character and nature of this person it will be well to begin with his 
superiority to the angels. This the writer emphasizes strongly and with 
considerable detail. The suddenness with which the writer descends 
from the beautiful and exalted language and thought of the first three 
verses of the first chapter, which form an imposing vestibule to a noble 
edifice, to the apparently insipid statement of vs. 4, “having become by 
so much better than the angels as he has inherited a more excellent 
name than they,” is at first disappointing; but such a feeling and atti- 
tude is modern, betraying a failure to enter into the thought, view, and 
situation of the writer. It is not even necessary to say with Bruce that 
the writer here, in true apologetic fashion, is accommodating himself to 
the peculiar views of the readers who made much of angels and con- 
sidered Jesus an angel. There is no evidence from the epistle that the 
writer considered his readers to hold heretical views or even exaggerated 
views concerning the angels. He depreciates the dignity and work of 
the angels only in contrast with the superior dignity and work of Christ. 

This is perfectly natural and reasonable when we consider what a 
prominent part angels played in the ancient religious economy. It is 
evident that in various ways the author himself shared these views 
concerning the high office of angels. He speaks of entertaining strangers 
as possibly entertaining angels unawares (13:12); he speaks of “ myriads”’ 
of angels, even a festal assembly and convocation of firstborn who are 
enrolled in heaven.t Of itself this reveals a high conception of angels 
on the part of the writer. He speaks of the specific and ordinary function 
of angels as being that of ministering spirits sent forth to minister on 
behalf of those who shall be heirs of salvation (1:14). But it is not of 
angels that Jesus lays hold to help (2:15), nor is the world to come, the 
future kingdom of abiding reality, to be subjected to angels (2:5). The 
reason for his making this latter statement is, doubtless, the idea con- 


τ Cf. Peake, Hebrews, ad. loc., Ὁ. 233. 
362 


THE CHRISTOLOGY OF THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS 37 


tained in the phrase ‘‘the word spoken through the angels proved 
steadfast” (2:2). The writer evidently has the conception, more clearly 
expressed by Paul and common to the primitive Christians, that the old 
covenant, with its law and promises and warnings, was mediated through 
angels. 

This, then, is the conception that causes and justifies the extended 
contrast between Christ and the angels which is put prominently first in 
the epistle (1:5-14). If the word of the old covenant spoken through 
angels was steadfast and every transgression and disobedience received 
a just recompense, they surely cannot expect to escape who neglect a 
word that is spoken through the Lord who is so superior in dignity and 
person to the angels. The degree of this superiority is expressed in 1:4, 
“having become by so much better than the angels as he has inherited 
a more excellent name than they.” The word translated “better” is 
indefinite; it means “superior’’ without denoting in what the superiority 
consists. There is no reference in the word to moral worth or character. 
Clement of Rome (Ad Cor. 1:36) was probably unconsciously influenced 
by the true shade of meaning here when, in quoting this passage, he 
substituted the word μείζων for κρείττων, i.e., “greater,” “superior” 
in point of dignity and rank, since he is seated on the right hand of the 
majesty on high. 

But the reason for this high place in dignity and rank above the 
angels is, that he has inherited a more excellent name than they. Earlier 
interpreters took this word ‘“‘name”’ in the general sense so frequent in 
Scripture, as denoting “dignity,” “glory,” “fame” (cf. Phil. 2:9). 
Modern interpreters, however, largely agree in understanding the author 
to have in mind the specific name ‘“‘Son.” This seems at first natural, 
as the next two verses contain the name “Son” and are closely connected 
with the preceding by the word “for”: ‘For to what one of the angels 
did he ever say, Thou art my Son, I today have begotten thee? And 
again, I will be to him a Father and he shall be to mea Son.” But vs. 6 
continues the thought of the high dignity of Christ without any reference 
to the specific name “‘Son.’”’ Moreover, the rest of the quotations in 
this chapter have no reference to the specific name ‘‘Son.”’ It seems 
better therefore to hold to the older interpretation. The word “name” 
denotes the higher dignity, rank, worth, and fame of Christ. This is 
shown from Old Testament Scripture in vss. 5 and 6 by the fact that the 
intimate relation denoted by the word “‘son”’ exists between him and 
God, a term which Scripture has never used of any one of the angels; 
also by the fact that when Christ comes a second time into the world 

363 


38 HISTORICAL AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES 


all the angels of God are to worship him. Vss. 7-12 show the superiority 
of Christ over the angels in that while they are changeable forms of 
being that pass into the forces of Nature at the will of God, Christ is 
not like the angels, subject to such change into the elements, for under 
God (1:2), he himself made the world, the heavens, and the forces of 
Nature; and thus, though they change, he changes not but abides the 
same eternally. Moreover, God never called any angel to share with 
him his throne (1:13) and with it universal dominion. Thus Christ 
is superior to the angels in that he enjoys the intimate relationship of 
Son to God, eternal dignity and worth which are superior to world- 
changes, and finally, royal rank in sharing with God his throne and 
promised universal dominion. 

More obvious to us is the effort of the author to show the superiority 
of Christ over Moses. Even today we appreciate the exalted part which 
Moses played in connection with the establishment of the old covenant, 
though we scarcely accord him the great glory with which not only the 
Jews, but also the devout gentiles of antiquity, encircled his name. 
His name was prominent among the Jews. And the author of Hebrews 
does not by any means intend to depreciate his glory. He considers 
him the great apostle—perhaps also priest—of the old covenant, the 
mediator between God and his people. In 11:23 ff. he describes him 
among the other heroes of faith with exceptionally vivid touches; he 
speaks of him as choosing the reproach of the Christ, by which phrase 
he designates the sufferings both of the Old Testament and the New 
Testament people of God (11:26). Moses is the great example of faith 
under the old covenant as Jesus himself is under the new (12:2). The 
commands of the old covenant he calls the ‘‘law of Moses” (10:28), a 
law that was strictly and terribly enforced. Moses was the great leader 
of the people from Egypt (4:16) and the one who was directed by God 
and intrusted with the task of making the tabernacle according to the 
pattern revealed to him in the Mount (8:5). 

The writer, therefore, holds the high opinion of the place of Moses 
peculiar to his people. He is careful not to offend his readers in his 
discussion of the superiority of Jesus. For in 3:1-6 he begins by placing 
them on a par in the quality of faithfulness which both Moses and Jesus 
manifested in their respective missions. This was a quality displayed 
in the fulfilment of their official tasks. But in the nature and glory of 
his person and position Jesus is far superior to Moses. He is as superior 
in glory as the builder of a house is superior in glory to the house itself. 
The word ‘‘house’”’ is not used here only in the limited sense of a 

364 


THE CHRISTOLOGY OF THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS 39 


“building” but in the fuller sense of the “‘household.”’ In fact it is used 
in a still larger sense as denoting that over which anyone has control or 
jurisdiction, as a king’s people or kingdom was spoken of as his ‘‘house.”’ 
The three meanings of “building,” “household,” and “people” or 
“‘kingdom”’ are here involved.! 

The most natural and consistent interpretation of this seems to be 
that Moses, great though he was, was himself only a part of God’s house, 
a servant in the house, one of the people, while Jesus is the one who 
established this house and is over it. A house must be built or estab- 
lished by someone: it does not grow of itself. And the one who 
established God’s house was Jesus. He is therein far superior to Moses 
who was himself only a member of the household. The thought here 
seems to be somewhat different from that in 2:11 where Christ is closely 
associated as one with those who are sanctified. But the two thoughts 
while contrasted are not contradictory. In 3:3 the thought is, perhaps, 
hardly to be pressed so far as to imply that Christ is conceived by the 
writer as the actual author of the dispensation of the old covenant, 
though this would not be out of accord with the writer’s general point 
of view which considers Christ as the representative of God in all things. 
The thought that God is back of all that Christ does would then be 
emphasized and guarded by 3:4) which is careful to make God the 
ultimate source of all things (cf. Ps. 127:1a). It is, however, unlikely 
that the author is here thinking of the preincarnate Christ as the builder 
of the Old Testament portion of the house; rather, he is thinking of 
God’s house as one and Christ its builder without distinguishing sharply 
between old and new. Again, Jesus is superior in position and person 
in relation to this house, for while Moses was but a servant, Jesus was 
Son over God’s house. This unique relation denoted by Son must be 
left for further consideration. 

The author considers Jesus, by virtue of his dignity as Son, superior 
to all the prophets of the Old Testament dispensation. This superiority 
is set forth concisely and yet decisively in the first two verses of the 
epistle. In all these comparisons it has been noted that Christ is superior 
because of his superior dignity and position and this superior dignity and 
position is expressed though not defined in the word Son. 

It may not be amiss to call attention to the fact here that, though no 
comparison is openly expressed, a comparison is implied between Christ 
on the one hand and Moses and Joshua on the other, in that while they 
both failed to lead the people of the old covenant into the promised rest 


τ Cf. Philo, De plantat. Noe, sec. τό, p. 224A. 
365 


40 HISTORICAL AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES 


of God (3:16; 4:8), Christ is the one who succeeds in doing so. The 
comparison, however, is not so decisive, since the emphasis is rather 
upon the failure through the disobedience and unbelief of the people 
themselves than upon the failure or success of their leaders. 


III. CHRIST SUPERIOR AS HIGH PRIEST AFTER THE ORDER OF 
MELCHIZEDEK 

We reach the heart of the epistle when we come to consider the main 
thesis of the writer, that Jesus is superior to the priests and more espe- 
cially to the High Priest of the old covenant. This is the main con- 
structive portion of the epistle (4:14—10:18). It shows the superiority 
of Christ as High Priest after the order of Melchizedek and will naturally 
include consideration of him as Mediator of a new covenant, as sinless, 
and as Author of eternal salvation. 

I. CHRIST THE MEDIATOR OF A BETTER COVENANT 

That Jesus as High Priest of the new covenant is superior to Aaron 
and the Levitical priests of the old is the great thesis of the epistle. That 
Jesus is presented as High Priest is almost a unique thesis in the New 
Testament. Paul hints at the thought when he says that Christ 
Jesus makes intercession at the right hand of God for us (Rom. 8:348), 
but he does not develop the idea. The Book of Revelation has the 
thought of believers as being priests unto God, but not of Christ as Priest 
or High Priest. In Hebrews the thesis is worked out with a fulness of 
detail and richness of moral and spiritual truth that is remarkable. It 
is altogether probable that the emphasis and detail are due to the 
influence either of Alexandrianism or of the mystery-religions or of both. 
It seems clear from the epistle itself (4:14) that the general thesis 
formed part of the contents of what was regarded as a regular confession 
which Christian converts made and which the readers, under the stress 
of opposition and persecution, were in danger of breaking. 

The writer, however, has seized upon this thesis of Jesus as High 
Priest of a new covenant and has constructed his whole theology and 
Christian teaching about it. He has attempted to express the whole 
significance of Jesus through it. In the Old Testament, he thinks chiefly 
of the ministry of the High Priest on the great Day of Atonement. That 
whole system, he says, God-given though it was, was only typical. Its 
_ priesthood, its ministry, and its law were imperfect. They failed to 
clear the consciences of men from the sense and burden of sins. From 
the Old Testament story of Genesis, helped by touches from Philo of 
Alexandria, he sets forth the superiority of Jesus as High Priest under 

366 


THE CHRISTOLOGY OF THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS 41 


the strange, weird figure of Melchizedek. Melchizedek is king of 
righteousness and king of peace: so is Jesus. He is superior to the 
patriarch Abraham and therefore also to the sons of Levi in that he, the 
greater, gave to Abraham his priestly blessing. Abraham, on the other 
hand, gave to Melchizedek a tenth of the spoils he had taken from the 
kings. The Levites were mortal men but, arguing like Philo from the 
silence of Scripture, Melchizedek’s priesthood had no beginning and no 
end; so too with Christ. On account of the fact that he abides forever 
Christ has an unchangeable priesthood, a priesthood that does not pass 
from him to another. They were appointed priests according to the law 
of a carnal commandment, i.e., according to a law of physical descent 
which could only be a temporary arrangement: Jesus was appointed 
priest according to the power of an indissoluble life, i.e., a life of such 
τ high moral and spiritual quality that it cannot be broken by death and 
therefore insures a permanent priesthood. And it is this that sums up 
his superiority as High Priest of the new covenant. To be sure, he is 
superior in other respects. He is appointed by oath of God; he presents 
a better offering, himself; he ministers in the true tabernacle, in heaven 
itself, in the very presence of God (8:2) whither he has entered, having 
passed through the intermediate heavens (4:14), as forerunner (4:16; 
6:20). 

But the reiterated expression that reveals his superiority over the 
Levitical high priests is that he is called by God (5:5) High Priest accord- 
ing to the order or rank of Melchizedek, who was himself superior to the 
Levitical priests in that being without father, without mother, without 
genealogy as priest, he is made like the Son of God and abideth a priest 
forever. It is the person of Jesus as Son of God and the fact that being 
such he abides a priest forever that constitutes his superiority over the 
Levitical priests. There is probably no thought of distinction in the 
writer’s mind between Christ as Priest and as High Priest. It is prob- 
ably not necessary here to go farther into the perplexities of chap. 7 which 
deals with Melchizedek as a type of Christ. There is in it a strongly 
Philonian coloring. The gist of it for our purpose is plain, viz., to show 
how great this strange figure of Melchizedek was as it darted across the 
pathway of Old Testament history, suddenly rising and as suddenly 
disappearing. It had the halo of eternity about it and shadowed forth 
a new and better priesthood. The statement of Scripture (Ps. 110:4) 
that the Messiah was called by God High Priest after the order of 
Melchizedek gives the proof-text he wishes and furnishes the writer 
solid ground for transferring this superiority of Melchizedek to Jesus. 

367 


42 HISTORICAL AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES 


It is especially plain in this case that while appearing to work from Mel- 
chizedek as type toward Christ, the author is really working from Jesus 
back to Melchizedek and seeing in Melchizedek largely what he needs 
to see in order to express his confidence in the supremacy of Jesus. It 
is a typical piece of Alexandrian exegesis. 

While this figure of Melchizedek suggests the main points in which 
the superiority of Jesus consists, viz., his Sonship to God and his per- 
manency as priest, there are other points of superiority to the Levitical 
priests which it does not touch. Jesus is superior to the Levitical priests 
in that he is also the mediator (8:6; 9:15) and sponsor (7:22), or surety 
by his death (9:15), for a better covenant established upon better 
promises and having a more excellent ministry. The reason given in 
this passage (7:20 ff.) for the superiority of the covenant is the fact that 
this new covenant is mediated and guaranteed by a priest who was 
appointed by oath of God. But the new covenant or law is superior in 
itself also because under it the end of religion, viz., the full forgiveness of 
sins, is finally and forever secured (10:16-18). The new law is better 
also because it is inward and personal. With keen insight he seizes upon 
the passage in Jer. 31:31 ff. that speaks of a new dispensation in which 
religion shall be inward and personal, whereby he finds in the Old 
Testament itself, as he did in the case of Melchizedek (Ps. 110:4), 
support for his thesis that there is to be a new and better covenant 
written not on tables of stone but on fleshly tables of the heart and 
mind. But it is interesting to note how carefully the writer subordinates 
the covenant or law to the priesthood. With him it is axiomatic that a 
change of priesthood automatically necessitates a change of law. This 
appears in 7:11-19. He has already shown that according to Scripture 
(Ps. 110:4) Melchizedek prefigures a new and different priesthood. 
That means a new law (vs. 12), because Jesus, being of the tribe of 
Judah, is, like Melchizedek, of a different order. That the old law 
should be a failure (vss. 11, 18), that Melchizedek should picture a differ- 
ent and higher priesthood, that Jesus should actually come from the 
tribe of Judah—all these harmonize with and confirm one another and 
unite in making clearer (vs. 15) the main point of the whole section, viz., 
that the Levitical priesthood and the old law have both failed in accom- 
plishing the essential and ultimate end of religion and therefore have given 
place to a new priesthood and a new law. This new and better covenant 
he identifies with the full and final word of revelation given by God in 
his Son (1:2) and spoken first by the Lord himself (2:3). But the 
efficient virtue of this new law or covenant rests ultimately upon the 

368 


THE CHRISTOLOGY OF THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS 43 


personnel of the priesthood, that is, upon the personal worth and char- 
acter of Jesus who is at once mediator, surety, and priest of this new and 
better covenant. As Moses and the angels were mediators of the old, 
so Jesus is mediator of the new, and is as far superior to them as the new 
is superior to the old. It may be that here again the author implicitly 
considers Moses priest as well as prophet, thus making the parallel with 
Jesus as High Priest more complete. 


2. SINLESSNESS OF JESUS 


Another part of Jesus’ superiority as High Priest is indicated in the 
characterization “holy, guileless, undefiled, separated from sinners 
and made higher than the heavens” (7:26). The latter phrase denotes 
his superior glory as having entered into the true tabernacle, the inner- 
most heaven which is the abode of the full presence of God. But in the 
rest of the terms applied to Jesus as High Priest in this passage, we have 
a statement of his perfect purity and sinlessness. Closely connected 
with this is the statement of 7:28 that the law appointeth men high 
priests who have weakness, while the word of the oath of God appoints 
a Son perfected forevermore, i.e., without weakness. It is not contra- 
dictory to this that the writer in another place (5:1-3), while giving the 
necessary qualities of every high priest, says that he is girt (or encom- 
passed) with weakness. This must not be pressed so as to apply to 
Jesus as High Priest in his exalted state. In this same passage the 
author also says that the High Priest must make offering not for the 
people only but also for himself. This certainly the author does not 
mean to apply to Jesus as High Priest, for he distinctly says that he 
had no need to make offering for himself. It is probable that during 
the earthly existence he considers Christ as encompassed with weakness, 
while in his exaltation, where he is considered as pre-eminently High 
Priest, he is perfected and therefore completely free from weakness. Of 
the rest of the terms of 7:26 “holy” is used of relationship to God, 
“guileless”’ of the personal character, and “‘undefiled”’ of freedom from 
ceremonial contamination from the outside. The phrase “separated 
from sinners” lies midway between the preceding and following phrases. 
It suggests, on the one hand, the seven-days’ separation of the high- 
priest before the great Day of Atonement in order to avoid ceremonial 
contamination and, on the other, it finds its complement in the phrase 
“made higher than the heavens,” which denotes the place of supreme 
honor and dignity in the ineffable presence of God. The whole passage 
carries the atmosphere of the mystery-religions and emphasizes the 

369 


44 HISTORICAL AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES 


perfect ceremonial and personal purity of the High Priest Jesus in his 
official capacity both before God and before men. The most striking 
passage on this topic, however, refers to the period of preparation for 
his High-Priestly office, the earthly period of temptation. In 4:15 it 
is said of him that he was “‘tempted in all things in like manner [with 
us] without sin.” Here the sinlessness of Jesus is more specifically 
stated but it is spoken of as an achievement, a concrete thing rather than 
an abstract, absolute thing, a positive thing rather than a negative 
thing. For the meaning of the author here evidently is, that Christ 
has the quality of sympathy because he has actually been tempted 
in all things (i.e., exactly in the same way) as we are tempted. But he 
was victorious in all his temptations and therefore sinless. This sinless- 
ness was an acquirement rather than an endowment. 


3. JESUS AS AUTHOR OF ETERNAL SALVATION 


There is still another phase of his High-Priestly work which, in the 
presentation of the writer, sets forth the exalted superiority of Jesus. It 
may be summed up in the characteristic phrase of the writer that Jesus 
is the cause or author of eternal salvation (5:9). This salvation is 
conceived by the author as primarily future (9:28). The whole epistle 
is written upon the view that the realization of their hopes lies in the 
future, in that time when Christ shall come again and usher in that rest 
of God which God has been waiting to share with his people since the 
finishing of creation (4:8 ff.). Then all enemies shall have been subdued 
beneath his feet and for his followers anticipation shall have passed into 
realization. Meanwhile they must hope, believe, endure, struggle, and 
hold fast their confession, since he is faithful that promised (6:12; 
6:13 ff.; 10:23), and their time for waiting is not long (10:37)—the 
ancient heroes have had to wait much longer (11:40). But this feature 
of the author’s presentation may easily be overemphasized at the expense 
of the elements of salvation that are realized during the earthly career of 
the believer. It is an error easy to make if one holds the author of 
Hebrews strictly to his somewhat fantastic intellectual scheme of things. 
But one must recognize that such a writer breaks through his own frame- 
work. The old bottles will not hold the new wine. There are many 
clear indications that while the picture the writer presents is that of 
persons waiting sick at heart for the fulfilment of a promise that seems 
to fail them, like watchmen in the night waiting for the day that never 
seems to dawn, as a matter of fact the blessings of that day of realization 
are continually breaking in upon the darkness of their faith. Realization 

370 


THE CHRISTOLOGY OF THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS 45 


is not wholly in the future. This will appear more fully after presenting 
the writer’s conception of eternal salvation. 

As already noted, the writer says that Jesus himself began the procla- 
mation of this great salvation (2:3). The word of this higher revelation 
was a word of salvation in contrast with the word of the old dispensation. 
The mediators of the old were Moses and the angels, but the mediator 
of the new was a Son, Jesus. Therefore is this salvation so great as to 
be final and authoritative. The writer does not here reveal precisely in 
what he considered this salvation first proclaimed by the Lord to consist. 
The words of 2:4 exhibit the condition of the early Christian church 
with considerable verisimilitude when compared with the introductory 
chapters of Acts. It is likely that the writer considered himself to be 
in essential harmony with the primitive church in his conception of this 
salvation. It consisted of the proclamation that Jesus of Nazareth was 
the Messiah, that his death, resurrection, and exaltation at God’s right 
hand brought the boon of the forgiveness of sins through him. The 
promise of his return to inaugurate the kingdom of God and restore all 
things was added. The author was probably not conscious to himself 
of having advanced upon this primitive message or of having altered it 
in any way. He cast the common message into his own peculiar intel- 
lectual mold for the purpose of interpretation, exhortation, and enforce- 
ment. But to be more certain of his conception it is necessary to go to 
his own full and characteristic elucidation of this eternal salvation. 

To begin with, the great lines on which he constructs his framework, 
viz., covenant, priesthood, sacrifice, etc., demand and secure a unique 
and supreme emphasis upon the death of Jesus. The purpose of his 
humiliation in comparison with the angels, and of his sharing in flesh 
and blood like his brethren, was just that he might undergo the experi- 
ence of death on their behalf (2:14, possibly 2:9), thus delivering them 
from the fear of death. How Jesus’ death could accomplish this the 
writer shows more clearly in 10:5 ff., where he states that Jesus’ death is 
a sacrifice cheerfully undertaken by him in accordance with the will of 
God because of the evident ineffectiveness of the sacrifices under the old 
covenant (10:1-4). ‘“‘Ineffectiveness”’ is perhaps too mild a word to 
use, as the author seems to mingle with his statements here a slight 
touch of quiet scorn. But the death of Jesus is by no means ineffective. 
It is the one final sacrifice of the superior new covenant, while those of 
the old covenant were many and continually repeated. It is emphasized 
in various solemn and emphatic words (9:26; 10:12). It is the sacrifice 
of himself, a strikingly new thing (9:14), an offering that is faultless 

371 


40 HISTORICAL AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES 


(9:14). Since his death is sacrificial, it secures the forgiveness of sins 
fully and finally—at least to those who add on their part all diligence 
(10:18). How precisely it does this or could do this the writer does not 
attempt to say simply because neither he nor his readers had any thought 
of going behind the cardinal conception of their day, viz., that without 
shedding of blood there is no remission of sins (9:22). This death of 
Jesus in its relation to sins is probably conceived as timeless. At least 
it is retroactive in its efficacy, opening up the promised eternal inheritance 
by the removing of the sins committed under the old covenant (9:15). 
It is probable also that the writer conceives the virtue of this sacrificial 
death of Jesus to extend to sins of the future as of the past, though he 
says nothing definitely about it. It is true that he has a strange reserva- 
tion in regard to wilful sins, but it is hardly fair to his presentation to 
maintain as some have done that it has no provision for any sins com- 
mitted after enlightenment or conversion, and that from this arises his 
stern and somber view of God as the consuming fire and terrible judge. 
Without minimizing the latter fact, it is however more likely that he 
conceived the sacrificial death of Jesus as timeless in its efficacy availing 
for sins past, present, and future. And it must further be said that the 
writer does not conceive of this purification of sins made by the sacrificial 
death of Jesus (1:3) as an external, mechanical, forensic thing. It does 
not in the least degree release the believer from the intense exercise of all 
the virtues of the Christian life. It is not a mere ceremonial thing like 
the old sacrifices (9:13), but reaches to the inmost being, cleansing the 
conscience from dead works to serve a living God (9:14). It purifies 
and sanctifies (9:23; 10:2; 10:10; 13:12). Doubtless these words 
originally and generally in Scripture, and in this epistle, have a static, 
aoristic sense; but historic development, the general atmosphere of the 
epistle, and in particular such a passage as 12:10, indicate that in 
addition they possess in Hebrews a strong ethical and spiritual coloring. 
Entrance by faith into the true holy place of God’s real presence is gained 
through this sacrificial death of Jesus (10:19, 20). We must not mini- 
mize the moral and spiritual strength of this thought simply because God 
is conceived as inhabiting a local dwelling-place. If to the sacrificial 
death of Jesus we add its sequel, the resurrection and exaltation, we shall 
arrive at the full import of the phrase “eternal salvation” as the end of 
the High-Priesthood of Jesus. The word “eternal,” as used in this 
epistle, is qualitative as well as temporal in its content. It implies a 
bringing into full covenant relation with God so that there shall be 
harmony and free, glad intercourse, that the people shall be God’s 
372 


THE CHRISTOLOGY OF THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS 47 


people and God shall be their God (8:10). And though the idea of a 
covenant people is always prominent with this writer he, of course, 
thinks also of the individual and his relation to God. Jesus as exalted 
High Priest is able to save completely, that is, not only eternally but 
perfectly, those who come unto God through him (7:25). And this 
complete salvation finds its perfection in that full realization of the 
covenant relation which is described as the eternal inheritance (9:15), 
the sabbatismos of the people of God. This, however, is to be realized 
only at the second coming of Christ when a new order shall prevail and 
the world of eternal and spiritual realities shall be fully revealed. 

In the view of the epistle, then, the whole of this imposing structure 
rests upon the one central essential point of Jesus’ sacrificial death as the 
necessary death of the testator of the new covenant (9:16). The 
writer was not at all concerned to question the logical or theological 
necessity of this death, nor to wonder how such virtue could reasonably 
and consistently be attached to it. That is a modern question. With 
the writer the necessity was wholly religious and practical; in this, as in 
many other features of the epistle, we have evidence that not philosophy 
or theory but experience is fundamental. If, however, the author were 
asked the question he would reply, as indeed he actually does declare in 
the epistle, that the reason Jesus’ death does have such large results 
religiously and ethically is that it is the death of one who is appointed 
of God to be High Priest after the order of Melchizedek—that is, one 
whose personal inner nature, worth, and position as Son of God were such 
that his death could have these results (5:5, 6). He was the spotless 
High Priest (9:14) who needed not to make any offering for himself 
but offered himself through eternal spirit to God (9:14). This latter 
probably means that while the sacrifices of the old covenant were only 
fleshly or physical (9:13), performed by a priest appointed by physical 
descent (7:16), Jesus’ sacrifice moved in the realm of the spiritual, was 
voluntary, perfect, and therefore eternal (7: 16),and spiritual in its effects. 
In a word, the significance of Jesus’ death in the thought of the writer 
depends directly upon the nature and worth of his person. By his 
entrance into the heavenly and true holy place and his unchangeable 
priesthood (7:24), upon the basis of his sacrificial death, he has secured 
the forgiveness of sins, the continued sanctification and ultimate per- 
fection of his people. It is true, of course, that what really fills the 
writer’s vision and constitutes the sum of his thought is the continued 
activity of Jesus as exalted High Priest. The actual death is but one 
event, yet it is original and fundamental. 

373 


48 HISTORICAL AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES 


Although the author uses the framework of the old covenant as the 
vehicle of his thought, he clearly has no superficial, merely ceremonial 
conception of sin and salvation. He has the original ceremonial meaning 
of the terms “holiness,” ‘‘sanctification,” “purification,” and “‘perfec- 
tion,” yet it is evident from the general tone of the writing that these 
words carry a weight which their original meanings will not bear. Ina 
large degree religion has become ethical, so that there is a deeply moral 
and religious meaning in these terms and in the whole content of the 
salvation provided by the new covenant. This is expressed in the 
writer’s scheme by saying that the old covenant is merely type while 
the new is the reality, the old is shadow while the new is sub- 
stance. But the writer in many other ways reveals the strongly 
ethical tone of his system. He insists continually, sternly, almost 
monotonously upon the absolute necessity of perseverance and 
obedience. With him unbelief is equivalent to disobedience (cf. 3:12 
with 4:6). Even Jesus himself learned obedience through that which 
he suffered (5:8). The perfect among believers are those, who, by reason 
of use or habit, have their senses trained to distinguish between good 
and bad (5:14). The thought as well as the words here reveal a strain 
of the Stoic philosopher with his emphasis on morals. This obedience, 
indeed, is to a new law (7:12; 8:6)—a law that is inward, personal, and 
universal (8:10 ff.). And the high character of this obedience is shown 
very clearly in the Doxology (13:20). It is pursuing of the good in 
accordance with the will of God as Jesus himself did (10:5). It is nota 
merely human and natural pursuit but is aided by the inspiration of the 
leadership and example of Jesus (12:2), by the impartation of the Holy 
Spirit (6:4), and by the whole High-Priestly activity and sympathy of 
Jesus (2:18; 5:9). This obedience avoids the legalism of Pharisaic 
Judaism on the one hand and the mystical element of Paulinism on the 
other. It is more lofty than the one and more humble than the other. 

It is held by many’ that the eternal salvation thus gained is an 
entirely future thing. This again, is putting a greater burden on the 
writer’s philosophical world-view than it should be expected to bear. 
Even if it be true (which can hardly be granted) that the word “‘salva- 
tion’’ whenever used always refers to the perfected believer in the future 
perfect state, the consummated rest of God, it would still not necessarily 
follow that nothing of what we today call salvation was realized by the 
believers of the epistle during their earthly life. It depends on how much 
we include in the writer’s term “‘salvation.”” We may, if we wish, force 


τ Scott, Apologetic of the New Testament, p. 202; McGiffert, Apostolic Age, p. 473. 
374 


THE CHRISTOLOGY OF THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS 49 


the word into the narrow limits of the perfected final state. But there 
still remains much in the epistle which Jesus does for believers during 
their earthly life. It is unnatural to interpret otherwise such passages 
aS 2:10; 2:14-18; 4:16; 7:25; 12:28, and especially 13:20, 21. The 
context and the present tenses used, demand a reference to present 
benefits. Whether these benefits are included by the writer in his word 
“salvation” or not is, in any case, largely a matter of words not of 
reality. The benefits are clearly such as are necessary to the realization 
of the covenant relation, viz., the relation of harmony and communion 
with God. It is much more natural, therefore, to say that by the term 
“‘salvation,”’ the writer denotes all the benefits received under the inspira- 
tion or by the help of Jesus, which benefits are necessary to the realization 
of the new covenant relation, viz., entrance into and full enjoyment 
of the presence of God. This is partially realized before, and fully 
realized only after, the parousia of Christ (9:28). Delitzsch’s words 
on 7:25 are pertinent here: 

This all-embracing salvation is vouchsafed to those who through him 
approach to God, that is, those who in faith make use of the way of access 
which he has opened, and which remains open to him; nay more, this very 
access to free and joyous communion with God, made by the removal of 
the barrier of sin, is in itself the all-including commencement of that perfect 
“salvation.” 

Thus the author of the Hebrews emphasizes the future and passes 
lightly over the present, while we emphasize the present and pass lightly 
over the future. The important thing to notice here is that this salvation 
whether in its partial realization in the present or in its completed 
realization in the future is mediated through Jesus and is what it is 
because of what he is and does. He is the cause of this eternal salvation, 
being himself eternal. 

IV. CHRIST AS ETERNAL 
I. COSMIC SIGNIFICANCE OF CHRIST 

It will be well to consider first the writer’s conception of the cosmic 
significance of Christ. It is through him that God has made the ages, 
that is, the world (1:2). This great thought, distinct though it is, is 
neither emphasized nor amplified in the epistle. Elsewhere the writer 
attributes the work of creation directly to God as both the final and 
efficient cause (2:10). In another passage this work is attributed to 
the word of God (11:3). This contrast is not to be interpreted as a 
contradiction within the thought of the writer. It is rather to be 
considered as another of many indications in the epistle (cf. 3:45) that 

375 


50 HISTORICAL AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES 


God is supreme in the writer’s thought. This thought of Christ as 
agent of creation under God is more emphatic in the Fourth Gospel 
(1:2, 3) and in Colossians (1:16) than in Hebrews. It is pre-Gnostic 
and with the author of Hebrews probably Philonian in origin. Its 
importance here is that it expresses the author’s belief in the pre- 
incarnate activity of Christ. 

But not only did God make the world through Christ; he also made 
him heir of all things (1:2). The same thought is to be inferred from 
2:8, g and from 1:13. But while these passages indicate something 
received as an inheritance, something occurring progressively in time, 
the middle portion of 1:3 indicates an activity at least coextensive with 
the universe itself, since the Son bears all things by the word of God’s 
power. Here again the clearness with which this cosmic activity of 
the Son is subordinated to that of God is noteworthy as compared with 
a closely parallel passage in Colossians (1:17). 

But it is in contrast with this cosmic activity of the Son that tes 
eternal significance is first manifested clearly (1:10-12). This is done, 
indeed, by use of a quotation from Ps. 1o2 which the author applies 
directly and confidently to Jesus as Messiah. That the original referred 
to God himself is of no significance here since the object is the thought 
of the writer on the topic considered. The earth and the heavens, it is 
true, are the work of the Christ as Son and Messiah. But they are 
temporary and fleeting. Like garments they shall become old and 
threadbare and so shall be changed for new ones (1:11, 12). They shall 
perish, but the Son abides the same with no aging with the lapse of 
years (vs. 12h). The angels pass at the will of God into winds or flames 
(1:7), but the Son’s throne is forever (1:8). Thus over against the 
universe which the author, with the common thought of his time, con- 
ceives to be fleeting and changeable, the eternity of the Son is set forth. 

The eternity of Christ is also emphasized in connection with the 
eternal salvation which he provides. He is the Son perfected forever 
(7:28). He is able to save completely since he lives forever (7:25), and 
thus in contrast with the priests of the old dispensation has a priesthood 
that does not pass to another (7:24). By his offering through eternal 
spirit (9:14), he has obtained eternal redemption (9:12b), has secured 
to believers the promise of an eternal inheritance (9: 150). 


2. RELATION OF CHRIST TO MEN 
Of Christ’s relation to men in general this epistle has little to say 
directly, but there are some significant hints. The author thinks of 
376 


THE CHRISTOLOGY OF THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS 51 


what we call conversion as occurring at a definite time and speaks of it, as 
do the mystery-religions, as an enlightenment (6:4) and as becoming 
partners with Christ (3:14). Although in both of the above passages 
the danger and possibility of falling away is strongly emphasized, still 
conversion, in the view of the writer, divides men into two distinct 
classes. Naturally what the writer has to say regarding Christ’s relation 
to men concerns his relation to believers chiefly. Yet he says that he 
tasted death for everyone (2:9), that he lays hold not of angels but of 
the seed of Abraham (2:16). In this latter passage the context shows 
that the seed of Abraham denotes human nature as such in contrast with 
the spirit nature of angels. The author does not say seed of Adam, as 
we might expect, because along with his idea of human nature as such 
he has strongly in mind here, as everywhere, the thought of salvation, 
and the inheritors of this salvation are not human beings as such but 
just the seed of Abraham in the figurative or spiritual sense of the term, 
the true Israel. The point that is pertinent here, however, is that this 
language concerning Christ’s relation to men implies pre-existence as 
did also the author’s language regarding Christ’s relation to the world, 
his cosmic significance. This thought of pre-existence in relation to men 
stands out still more clearly in the author’s statement as to Christ’s 
relation to Melchizedek (7:3), viz., that Melchizedek was made like to 
the Son of God in being without father, without mother, without 
genealogy, without beginning of days, and without end of life. This 
statement is the more striking as it reverses the thought of the context 
in which Melchizedek is presented as the type of Christ. Pre-existence 
is not a necessary inference from this phrase, but it is the natural one 
in the light of the epistle as a whole. The same thought of pre-existence 
is clearer in the passage 2:11-14; also more fully in 10: 5-10. 

In the consideration of Christ as eternal, thus far, it has become plain 
that the writer holds clearly and emphatically to what might be called 
the future eternity of Christ. There has been considerable evidence also 
pointing to his pre-existence. But the writer has not been so clear and 
emphatic on what may be called the past eternity of Christ. Evidence 
for the writer’s view on this point will fall more naturally under the 
relation of Christ to God. 


3. RELATION OF CHRIST TO GOD 
a) Conception of God.—The conception of God found in the Epistle 
to the Hebrews is a lofty one. There is a somber element in the character 
of God in Hebrews that does not appear elsewhere in the New Testament 
377 


52 HISTORICAL AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES 


writings. There is but one God. The God of the Old Testament is the 
God of the New (1:1). There is thus unity in the universe and unity in 
revelation. But the God of the old dispensation revealed himself in 
ways more terrible than those of the new (12:18-24). Yet ultimately 
he is the same terrible God whose gracious (2:9) and persistent (1:1) 
efforts to reach and save men can be neglected only with terrible peril 
(12:25-29). Neglect of his supreme revelation in Jesus, his Son, can 
only bring the greater condemnation (2:3). This thought, to be sure, is 
one common to New Testament writers, but it is emphasized in Hebrews 
in a way that is repellent to modern views (6:4-8). It springs from the 
author’s whole conception of life as well as from his conception of God. 
His view of life as a whole is somber and stern. This element in the 
writer’s conception of God and life many commentators have tried to 
minimize by forced interpretations of such passages as 6:4-8. But we 
need to recognize this stern and somber element and accept it as inhering 
in the writer’s view of God and life. It may, indeed, be said that this 
stern and somber element does not belong to the writer’s conception 
positively but only negatively. It is called forth only by man’s care- 
lessness and wicked rejection of light and truth. 

This conception is fundamentally the Hebrew conception, touched 
however with the Greek (Platonic and Philonian) idea of the remoteness 
of God. God is difficult of access for men and yet access to God is the 
true ideal, the very thing that in the writer’s view constitutes salvation. 
God spake to the fathers of old in the prophets, but now in a Son, who 
is become the sole and sufficient mediator and means of true access to 
God. God is frequently spoken of as the living God (3:12; 9:14; 
10:31; 12:22). This expression denotes God as ever living and there- 
fore watchful against wickedness and powerful to punish. It is a terrible 
thing to fall into his hands. God is judge and vengeance and punish- 
ment belong to him (4:12; 10:30). He is a consuming fire (12:20). 
He is the invisible one whom faith must realize (11:6; 11:27). 

But God as judge, avenger, and consuming fire is terrible only to the 
unrighteous. He is holy, and without holiness no man shall see the 
Lord (12:14). But he is also the God of his covenant people (9: 20) and 
is not ashamed to be called their God, having prepared for them a city 
(11:16b). He received Abel’s gifts, translated Enoch, richly rewarded 
faithfulness and righteousness in the past, and has provided still better 
things for his people of the present than for those of the past (11:40). 
His very chastening is out of love and with the purpose of imparting 
holiness (12:10). The readers’ ministrations to the saints are reckoned 

378 


THE CHRISTOLOGY OF THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS 53 


as done to himself and will not be forgotten (6:10). Their services and 
sacrifices are well-pleasing to him (13:16). In the general sense God 
is father of all spirits (12:9) but he is specially gracious to his covenant 
people. 

In relation to the universe God is its creator. This primary postulate 
is given to us by faith (11:3). The meaning of this verse is much- 
disputed, but the natural interpretation is gained by falling back upon the 
Philonian views of the writer. The reference then, in μὴ ἐκ φαινομένων, 
is not to primitive chaotic matter, the ὕλη of Plato and the Greek 
philosophers in general, but to the archetypal ideas which in creation 
are embodied in visible form. That this is not doing violence to the 
writer can be seen from a comparison with 8:5. Creation is the divine 
act analogous to the task assigned to Moses in the making of the taber- 
nacle. Creation is directly attributed to God in another phrase which is 
frequent in Plato and Philo; God is the final and efficient cause of all 
things (2:10). In a miniature parable (6:7, 8) God is represented as 
blessing or rejecting the earth according as it is either fertile or barren 
for men. 

Indeed, God is over all and back of all and in all. The works of 
power in the Apostolic age were according to his will (2:4). He it is 
who is bringing many sons to glory (2:10). He is the God of peace who 
raised the Lord Jesus from the dead (13:20). The movements of Nature 
are the expression of his will. His voice shook the earth at Sinai and his 
voice shall shake both earth and heaven at the great metathesis when 
the kingdom of God shall be fully and finally established (12:26-29). 
God is the ultimate and efficient mover of all things (3:4). 

δ) God’s attitude to Jesus.—It is evident even from a cursory reading 
of the epistle that while God is supreme, Jesus stands in a unique relation 
to him. God’s attitude to Jesus is expressed in a number of statements. 
In the comparison with the angels God is represented as saying that all 
the angels must worship Jesus when God again brings him into the 
inhabited earth (1:6). In 1:8a either God is said to be the throne of 
Jesus, the Son, or the Son is himself addressed as God. In 1:13 God 
bids Jesus to sit at his right hand till he puts the enemies of 
Jesus beneath his feet. In 10:13 Jesus is represented as taking this 
exalted position and waiting till the promised subjection of his enemies 
should be fulfilled to him by God. Von Soden is right in reminding us 
that we have here only quotations which have been warped from their 
original meaning by rabbinical exegesis, but he is mistaken in thinking 
that for that reason they are of no service in determining the Christology 

379 


54 HISTORICAL AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES 


of the author himself. The fact that the author uses such quotations 
is of significance, though they are not to be interpreted as if they were 
his own writing. In 1:9) God is spoken of as anointing Jesus above 
his fellows, the angels, and he is there spoken of as the God of Jesus 
(“God, thy God’’). As God exalted Jesus above the angels, so he 
humbled him for a time beneath the angels (2:9), and this is the act of 
God who is the prime mover in the matter of the salvation of men (2:10). 
It is God who perfects Jesus through suffering (2:10), as he perfects 
through chastening and suffering all the sons whom he receives (12:6 ff.). 
It is God who glorifies Christ by making him High Priest after the order 
of Melchizedek. Christ did not take this honor to himself (5:5-10). 
It is God who raised Jesus from the dead (13:20). God prepared a 
body for Jesus (10:5). 

c) Jesus’ attitude to God—The converse of this is Jesus’ attitude or 
relation to God. As already shown, he is represented in the attitude 
of a devout and humble man praying to God with strong crying and 
tears and as being heard because of his piety (5:7 ff.). His sacrifice 
is voluntary: he offered himself to God blameless (9:14). Perceiving 
the fruitlessness of sacrifices, offerings, and holocausts in reference to 
sin, which are offered according to the law, perceiving also that they are 
neither desired by God nor acceptable to him, he, that is, Jesus Christ 
said, “‘Behold I am come, in the roll of the book it is written of me, to do 
Thy will O God” (10:7). The writer then repeats the quotation, separat- 
ing the two parts in order to emphasize the close logical relation between 
them. To the first part of the quotation he adds the expression, “such 
as are offered according to the law,” to indicate that it is not against 
sacrifices as such that he speaks but against the formal and ineffective 
sacrifices enjoined by the law. So too the will of God here spoken of is 
not the will of God ethically conceived, relating to life and conduct only 
and requiring no sacrifice of any kind. There was probably more of this 
latter thought in the Old Testament passages themselves than in the 
quotations as the author of Hebrews understood and used them. At any 
rate it is clear, both from the immediate context and from the general 
view of the writer as seen in the rest of the book, that what is here meant 
is not the will of God conceived in somewhat modern fashion as the 
ethical standard of life and conduct, but the will of God in relation to a 
concrete situation, viz., the forgiveness of sin and the sanctification and 
perfecting of men. For this purpose the sacrifices which were according 
to the law were of no avail—could be of no avail. For the blood of 
beasts could never take away sin. But it was far different with the 

380 


THE CHRISTOLOGY OF THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS 55 


sacrifice of such a one as Jesus Christ who offered himself blameless to 
God (9:14). Such a sacrifice could purge away sin (1:3), cleanse the 
conscience (9:14), and sanctify finally (10:10). The writer represents 
the preincarnate Christ as realizing this and accepting the challenge 
which the possibility offered. Christ disregards and sets aside the sacri- 
fices according to the law that he may establish the will of God; 10:10 
shows that this will of God means the sanctification of men by the offer- 
ing of the body of Jesus Christ, that body which God had prepared for him 
(10:5). This passage, then, is an approach in thought to the famous 
passage of Paul in Philippians (2:6-9). In the author’s view it is decisive 
for the pre-existence of Christ. It expresses also Christ’s voluntary 
obedience to God, not however, in general, but as directed along the 
single line of securing the salvation of men by the sacrifice of himself. 

Christ’s attitude to God is, further, one of faith like that of his 
brethren (2:13; 11:6). Christ is mediator between God and men, the 
mediator of the new covenant (8:6; 9:15; 12:24). He is appointed on 
behalf of men in things pertaining to God (5:1). 

The consideration of God, and Jesus’ relation to God, thus far 
carried out has yielded material on Jesus’ official relation to God rather 
than on his essential relation to God. The writer fully reveals both 
expressly and incidentally, that God is supreme, while Christ, superior 
though he is to angels, prophets, and priests, is distinctly subordinate to 
God. This supremacy of God and subordination of Christ is more 
distinct and continuous in Hebrews than in any other writing of the 
New Testament. At the same time this subordination is not in any 
degree pictured as one derogatory to Christ. In his human relation to 
God as man, in his official relations as agent of creation, as captain of 
salvation, as mediator of the new covenant and High Priest, in all these 
Christ is subordinate to God. So too in the future age of perfect realiza- 
tion. The angels are to worship Christ, but it is God that bids them 
do so (1:6). Christ’s pre-existence has been re-emphasized, but no 
further evidence is offered on the past eternity of Christ. 

d) Interpretation of the introduction, Heb. 1:1-4.—It is in place to 
consider here the introduction of the epistle which consists of the first 
four verses—or more strictly speaking of the first three verses, for the 
fourth verse is transitional to the next section. These introductory 
verses are to be considered, however, in their specific bearing on the 
relation of Jesus to God. 

Again postponing consideration of the phrase ‘in a Son” (1:2) till 
the whole question of Sonship is taken up, the fact is here to be noted 

381 


56 HISTORICAL AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES 


that owing to the position given it, the phrase, ὃν ἔθηκεν κληρονόμον 
πάντων, is to be taken in close association with the immediately pre- 
ceding phrase “in a Son.”” His heirship depends upon, or at least is the 
natural result of, his sonship and still more because he is the firstborn 
son πρωτότοκος (1:3). As Riehm says,’ his heirship denotes the 
genuineness of his Sonship as well as the permanence of his Lordship. 
This appointment as heir of all things is natural and right not only 
because he is Son but also because it was through him that God made 
the worlds. 

In endeavoring to settle the question as to whether this appointment 
to heirship is conceived by the writer to be quasi-timeless or as referring 
to the preincarnate Christ or as referring to the exalted Christ one is 
inclined, as in several other places in this epistle, to thrust aside the 
arguments for the various views and re-read the passage with intent to 
take the natural and evident meaning. In that case two things stand 
out clear. First, the position of the word καί indicates that the making 
of the worlds took place before the appointment to heirship, for other- 
wise the καί would have been placed first in its clause. Secondly, the 
verb ἔθηκεν, since it is not definitely modified here, refers to a definite 
time at which Christ was “‘placed”’ heir of all things. The fact that this 
heirship is repeatedly referred to as not complete or not yet fully realized 
(1:6; 1:13; 9:28; 10:13), but as requiring time for its completion, is 
also in favor of considering the appointment as occurring in time. If 
this is so, then the most natural time for the appointment to heirship is 
the time of the exaltation of Christ, when, according to the bidding of 
God (1:13), he sat down at the right hand of God in the heavens (8:1). 
This, however, is not to be so understood as to minimize the preincarnate 
activity of the Son which has been already spoken of. Rather, the 
heirship is to be considered as an additional gift to Christ, a fitting 
reward for one who had endured the cross, despising the shame, and so 
had taken his seat at the right hand of the throne of God (12:2). On 
account of Christ’s relation to God as Son and on account of his relation 
to the world as the agent of its creation, his appointment to the heirship 
of all things is not surprising, but rather the natural and eminently 
fitting thing. 

Thus far the external or official relation of Christ to God has been 
considered. There is only one passage in the epistle (1:3) which sets 
forth the internal or essential relation of Christ to God, and this verse 
appears in the introduction. 


τ Lehrbegriff des Hebréerbriefs, p. 297, note, quoting Chrysostom. 
382 


THE CHRISTOLOGY OF THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS 57 


The meaning of this passage has been much discussed, with com- 
paratively little agreement as to result. The chief difference of opinion 
concerns the word ἀπαύγασμα. There are three possibilities as to the 
meaning. The word comes from the verb ἀπαυγάζω, “to shine forth.” 
The three possible meanings therefore are: (1) “a shining or flashing 
forth,” referring to the process or action; (2) “that which is flashed 
forth,” viz., “beam,” “ray,” “brightness,” “emanation,” referring to 
the result; (3) a second or further result, viz., “reflected radiance,” 
“reflection.” For the noun form ἀπαύγασμα only the last two are 
likely meanings, since the word by its formation should denote result. 
The proper word for the first meaning, ‘shining forth,” is ἀπαυγασμός. 
This word is found in Plutarch.t| Cremer is surely wrong in making this 
word denote here the final result of the action, viz., “reflection,” though 
it may possibly denote the intermediate result, viz., ‘“brightness,”’ 
“splendor.” 

The difference of opinion, then, is as to which of the last two meanings 
the word ἀπαύγασμα bears in this passage. Does it mean “effulgence,”’ 
“emanation,” German Ausglanz, or ‘reflection,’ German Abglanz? 
Modern opinion is almost equally divided, a slight majority, perhaps, 
being in favor of the former meaning, viz., “effulgence,” “radiance,” 
Ausglanz. The means of decision between the two meanings must be 
an impartial study of the passages in which the word occurs. That 
practically all the Greek fathers take the word here in the former mean- 
ing, viz., ‘‘effulgence,”’ Ausglanz, is not without weight since it must be 
admitted that they knew Greek. But it is clear that, for an impartial 
consideration of the meaning of the word, earlier and contemporaneous 
usage must be considered rather than subsequent usage. The word 
however is a rare one, and in earlier usage is found only in the Wisdom 
of Solomon and in Philo. This is of itself significant, however, since on 
numerous grounds the Epistle to the Hebrews is known to be intimately 
related to these two works. 

A careful consideration of the four passages in Philo and Wisdom of 
Solomon in which this word occurs is not absolutely decisive in result. 
In Philo, De plantatione Noe, sec. 12, there is every probability that the 
word means “reflection,”’ Abglanz. In Philo, De concupisc., sec. 11, on 
the other hand there is every probability that the word means “efful- 
gence,” “emanation,” as the writer is there speaking of the πνεῦμα as 
breathed into man by God. In Philo, De mund. op., sec. 51, Cremer says 
that there is a clear case of the word meaning “effulgence,’’ while 


τ Mor. 934D. 
383 


58 HISTORICAL AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES 


Westcott says that the more appropriate meaning of the word in this 
passage is “reflection.” It is impossible to decide firmly and clearly as 
to which meaning is required in this passage. The balance of probability 
however lies in favor of the meaning ‘‘emanation,”’ Ausglanz. 

The passage in Wisd. 7:26 is a famous one. There can be no doubt 
that the writer of Hebrews was acquainted with it and was influenced by 
it whether consciously or unconsciously. The writer is speaking of 
Wisdom as the glorious attribute and attendant of God, and enumerating 
its qualities. Cremer says the associations and synonyms require the 
meaning “‘effulgence” and von Soden! agrees with him. Grimm, on the 
other hand? argues very cogently for the meaning ‘“‘reflection.”” Again, 
however, the balance of probability decides for the meaning “effulgence.” 
Of the four passages only one requires the meaning “‘reflection.” So far 
as previous usage requires, therefore, the balance of probability lies 
in favor of the meaning ‘“‘effulgence,” Ausglansz. 

With this information the passage in Hebrews must itself be con- 
sidered. This involves a consideration of the other words and thoughts 
of 1:3 to see whether, of the two meanings, the context decisively 
supports either one or the other. 

The word χαρακτήρ, which originally denotes an instrument to stamp 
with, such as a seal, comes to mean either the stamp (or figure) 
on the seal or the impression which such a stamp would make. With 
this word, too, then there is the possibility of a double meaning. Von 
Soden seems to want to combine these two meanings in the passage, as 
also the two meanings of ἀπαύγασμα, but his way of working it out is 
rather ingenious than convincing. Either meaning of the word, not both, 
may be taken here, provided it be remembered that only the relation of 
the Son to God is here spoken of, not the relation of the Son to the world 
orto men. Von Soden is no doubt right in comparing the use here with 
the use in the passage of Philo where the divine Logos is spoken of 
as the χαρακτὴρ τῆς σφραγῖδος θεοῦ3 But he is wrong in carrying 
over into the Hebrews passage the idea of instrument which is in the 
Philo passage. The Philo phrase means “the impress or engraving 
which is on the seal of God,’’ and the context shows that this engraving 
is used to make an impression on man and the world. But this latter 
idea is not at all found in the Hebrews phrase or its context, and is 
wrongly transferred to it from the Philo passage by von Soden. But the 

τ Handcommentar zum N.T., “Der Hebrierbrief,” 5. το. 

2 Handbuch su den Apokryphen des A. T., Buch der Weisheit, VII, 26. 

3 De plant. Noe, sec. 5; cf. Philo, Quod det. pot. insid., sec. 23. 

384 


THE CHRISTOLOGY OF THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS 59 


first meaning is no doubt the right meaning to assign to the word in 
Hebrews, namely, ‘the impress [or stamp or engraving] which is upon 
the ὑπόστασις of God,” not the “impression which the ὑπόστασις of 
God makes.’’ The word in this sense is most closely allied to its fre- 
quent use to denote the mark or stamp upon coin which, as Westcott 
says" “determines,” or, as he might better say, “expresses” “the nature 
and value”’ of that coin.? He says rightly that the word “express,”’ if 
the English had such a noun, would better denote the idea of the word 
than “impress.” It is that which reveals in characteristic outline the 
nature of that with which it is connected. It is thus closely related to 
εἰκών. 

The word ὑπόστασις denotes ‘‘that which stands under,” specifi- 
cally, that which underlies phenomena or appearance, namely reality. 
The word then means the “underlying reality,” the “essence,” as the 
Germans would say das Wesen. Its use for personality or person is a 
later development that does not belong here. 

As the seal and the stamp are closely related, so closely is the Son 
related to God and related in such a way that he, the Son, is both the 
likeness and revelation of the underlying essence or nature of God. 

It was hoped that within this verse (1:3) itself something would be 
found which would decide clearly between the two meanings of the word 
ἀπαύγασμα. This has not turned out to be the case. But the fact 
that the word χαρακτήρ is so closely related to εἰκών in meaning and 
that this meaning is almost identical with the second meaning of 
ἀπαύγασμα, viz., “reflection,” makes it altogether probable that the 
writer would make use of the meaning of ἀπαύγασμα which is further 
removed from that of εἰκών. In brief, ἀπαύγασμα meaning “reflection”’ 
and χαρακτήρ meaning “likeness” are too slightly differentiated to give 
sufficient point to the writer’s use of χαρακτήρ as an additional alter- 
native to ἀπαύγασμα. It may be added that as ‘“‘likeness’’ goes suit- 
ably with ὑπόστασις, so “effulgence” rather than “reflection” goes suitably 
with δόξα. 

This gives increased probability to the evidence for the meaning 
“effulgence,” gathered from earlier usage in Philo and Wisdom of 
Solomon. The fact that the Greek fathers uniformly take the word 
ἀπαύγασμα as meaning “‘effulgence”’ adds still further to the probability. 
This part of vs. 3 may then be translated, “‘who being the radiance 
of his glory and the express image of his essence.” 


t Epistle to the Hebrews, ad loc. 


2EKurip. El. 559 f.; Arist. Pol. 1:9. 
385 


00 HISTORICAL AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES 


These phrases have been considered with the purpose of eliciting the 
information they give or imply as to the relation of the Son to God. 
There can be no doubt that as Philo and Wisdom of Solomon apply these 
and similar terms to the Logos and Wisdom, so the writer of Hebrews 
applies them to the Son as preincarnate, with whom (as will be seen later) 
he has identified the Logos. If this identification of the historical 
Jesus with the Logos (or, as it might better be expressed, the substitution 
of the idea of the preincarnate Son for the Logos idea of Philo) be 
accepted, then there can be no reasonable doubt that these phrases 
introduced by the participle ὥν, as well as the one introduced by the 
participle φέρων, refer to this preincarnate Son, for they were certainly 
used of the Logos by Philo. 

In the same way it follows that the relation of the Logos to God 
denoted by these words in Philo forms the model or type, so to speak, 
which the author has in mind as he uses the phrases of the pre-existent 
Son. This is not to be pressed so far as to mean that the author is a 
mere slavish imitator of Philo in his views and method of presentation. 
But it does mean that in his effort to set forth the significance and 
supremacy of the historical Jesus he has gone beyond the limits of 
history, has passed beyond the Jewish identification of Jesus with 
the Messiah, and has entered the field of Greek thought and phi- 
losophy. He has identified Jesus with the Greek Logos, and, having 
so identified him, he assigns to him as the preincarnate Son some - 
at least of the attributes and relations of the Logos, specifically his 
relations to God as expressed in the phrases of vs. 3 which we have been 
considering. This identification having been made by the author of 
Hebrews, it is necessary to interpret expressions which are used of the 
Logos as referring not to the historical Jesus only, nor even to the exalted 
Christ only, but to this personality viewed as continuous, that is to 
say, though expressed less accurately, to the preincarnate Son. These 
phrases of vs. 3 are, then, to be interpreted as denoting the inner or 
essential relation of the preincarnate Son to God. 

The last phrase of vs. 3 introduced by φέρων refers to the pre- 
existent Son. The natural reading of the verse would make the αὐτοῦ 
after δυνάμεως have the same reference as the αὐτοῦ after ὑποστάσεως, 
viz., to God. While, therefore, this phrase denotes primarily a rela- 
tion of the Son to the world, it also denotes a relation to God. 
The thought is much the same as that of Col. 1:17, but is expressed 
in a more external way and emphasizes the subordinate relation of 
the Son to God. The particle re, which is ‘‘adjunctive,” not 

386 


THE CHRISTOLOGY OF THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS 61 


“conjunctive,” implies that the close relation to God indicated in the 
immediately preceding phrases is the inner ground of the relation of the 
Son to the world of time and space. It may be noticed in passing that 
this phrase is a close parallel, both in thought and in word, to several 
passages of Philo in regard to the Logos.? 

But the inner and essential relation of the pre-existent Son to God 
must be inferred primarily from the first two phrases of the verse. The 
phrase ‘‘radiance of his glory,” interpreted by following the similar 
description of the Logos and Wisdom given in the passage quoted from 
Philo and the Wisdom of Solomon, indicates that the Son is a revelation 
of the glory of God but in such a way that the Son himself has a glory 
which is similar to, indeed the same as, that of God but which is derived 
from God. Whether the author of Hebrews thought any more definitely 
of the person of the preincarnate Son than Philo thought of the person 
of the Logos or than the writer of Wisdom of Solomon thought of the 
person of Wisdom it may be very difficult to say. The very fact that he 
identifies the historical Jesus with the Logos would probably cause him 
to think of the preincarnate Son as a definite person (cf. 10:5 ff.). But 
it must be remembered that the phrase “‘effulgence of his glory” is at 
bottom a metaphor. Without doubt there is a deep reality underlying 
the expression of the writer, but that reality is described in a figure, the 
figure of radiating light. That he conceived the nature of the preincar- 
nate Son to be like to and derived from that of God is clear. But his 
thought was not directed toward unfolding the implications which later 
theologians saw latent in the phrase, such as that of the eternal genera- 
tion, φῶς ἐκ φωτός, as that watchword was later used in the church. 
Delitzsch3 says that the proper consequences to be drawn from this 
phrase are: (1) that the Son must be substantial with the Father, 
inasmuch as what emanates from light must itself have the nature of 
light, and (2) that the divine generation of the Son must be at once a 
free and a necessary process within the Godhead, inasmuch as ἥ αὐγὴ 
οὐ κατὰ προαίρεσιν τοῦ φωτὸς ἐκλάμπει, κατὰ δέ TL τῆς οὐσίας συμβεβηκὸς 
ἀχώριστον. With Lunemann4 he might have added the notion of 
independent existence and the notion of resemblance. And it must 
be true that some such notions of the Logos and his nature underlay 


τ Cf. Thayer under τε. 
2 Cf. Quis rer. div. haer., sec. 7; de somn., 1, 41; de mut. nom., sec. 44. 
3 Epistle to the Hebrews, 1, 40. 
4 Meyer Commentary on the N.T., ‘‘Hebrews,”’ p. 70. 
387 


02 HISTORICAL AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES 


this phrase. But the mistake of these commentators consists in using 
what is only an analogy, a metaphor, as if it were a syllogism and in 
making inferences from it toward which the mind of the writer when 
he wrote the phrase was not directed. If the writer had been a 
modern logician, or even one of the early Greek physical philoso- 
phers, such procedure might be permissible. As it is, the most 
we should say is that, expressed by a metaphor, the Logos originally, 
and hence the Son, as an independent or semi-independent being 
(expressed by the passive form ἀπαύγασμα) shares in and expresses the 
glory that belongs primarily to the being of God. 

The second phrase, ‘‘express image of his essence,” goes a step 
farther, saying that the Logos originally—and hence the Son—is a 
picture or revelation to the world of the true being or nature of God the 
one who is in himself invisible (11:27). The first phrase spoke only of 
the “glory” of God, this phrase speaks of the “‘essence,” the true being 
of which that glory was but the expression. The phrase is not to be 
understood as saying that the Logos, and hence the Son, is that true being 
or essence, or even that he partakes of that essence. This is rather said 
by the former phrase. The second phrase says rather that the Logos, 
and hence the Son, is the exact (though not necessarily ‘‘detailed”’) and 
trustworthy expression of the underlying reality or essence which gives 
rise to all the divine glory. The word “essence” is not to be limited to 
metaphysical substance but is to be considered as denoting the whole 
reality, whatever it may be, which underlies and produces the aesthetic, 
the mental, the moral, and the spiritual, which are assigned to the divine 
and are concentrated in the Son. 

Combining the two phrases, it is evident that they set forth an 
essential relation of a unique being to God. As has been shown, this 
being is supreme over angels, over Moses and Joshua, over priests and 
prophets. Such is he in himself and such is his relation to God and men 
that no man, angel, or spirit could do the work that he has done in 
sacrifice and redemption or be assigned to the place of honor to which 
he is assigned at the right hand of the majesty on high. And yet, 
though sharing in and expressing the glory of God and picturing in him- 
self at once metaphysically, mentally, morally, and spiritually the very 
nature and being of God, he is continuously dependent on God, alike in 
his historical manifestation as Jesus and in his pre-existent life as Son. 

As yet it must be admitted that the evidence for the past eternity 
of this unique being, the Son, is not clear. Even the phrases of vs. 3 
are not strong enough, not definite enough, too metaphorical, to permit 

388 


THE CHRISTOLOGY OF THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS 63 


the view that the doctrine of eternal generation was in the mind of the 
writer. His thought is not directed backward but forward, not to the 
past eternity or origin of the Son, but to his practical religious and 
saving work in the world of men. How the Son could be the radiance of 
God’s glory and the express image of his essence was no more an object 
of thought for the writer than how the shedding of blood could secure 
the remission of sins. The one was an assumption from his Alexandrian 
training, the other from his Jewish training.t The striking thoughts of 
this verse are not again referred to even when the writer touches upon 
the same general topic (cf. 11:3). 

6) Interpretation of Heb. 13:8.—The passage in 13:8, “ Jesus Christ 
yesterday and today the same, and forever,’’ must be interpreted in its 
context. It is connected in thought both with what precedes and with 
what follows. The first leaders of the church to which the epistle is 
addressed had died, probably as martyrs to their faith. The readers 
were in imminent danger of forgetting their high example. They 
themselves were evidently in danger of thinking their faith not worth 
the payment of sucha price. And this was because they were tempted 
to think that Jesus Christ was now no longer so real and powerful as in 
those early days of their first enthusiasm. He had failed to fulfil many 
of their expectations and so could no longer be counted on to make 
such costly sacrifice worth while. As an answer to their faithless fore- 
bodings the writer assures them that what Jesus Christ was in that earlier 
time “yesterday” that he is also in the present time “today.” The 
change is in themselves, not in him. The writer is contrasting the two 
periods and saying that Christ is the same in both. But after he has 
said this, his thought extends and he adds what he had not at first 
expected to say, viz., that Jesus Christ is the same “forever.’”’ So 
interpreted, this verse has nothing to say with regard to the past eternity 
of Christ, but does assert very distinctly his future eternity. 


V. VARIOUS TITLES OF CHRIST 
I. THE CHRIST (ὁ χριστόΞς) 

The title ὃ χριστός with the article occurs in the epistle six times, 
Wages TA) 5:5: 6:1; 9:14; 9:28; 11:26; without the article three 
times, viz., 3:6; 9:11; 9:24. The use of the title signifies that the 
historical person whom the writer nine times calls Jesus has been identi- 
fied with the Jewish Messiah. But it is evident too that by this time 
the idea has become a common one, for in the three passages mentioned 


τ Cf. von Soden, Handcommentar zum N.T., ITI, ‘‘Der Brief an die Hebrier,” 5. το. 
389 


64 HISTORICAL AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES 


above the title is used without the article simply as a proper name, with 
no particular descriptive force. At the same time there is an atmosphere 
about the name “Christ” that is different from that about the name 
“‘Jesus.”” The latter denotes the human and the historical; the former 
approaches somewhat to the official and eternal. 

From a study of the six passages in which the phrase “the Christ” 
occurs it is plain that the writer uses the word of the preincarnate person 
who is called the Christ. This appears from the passage in 5:5, where 
it is said that the Christ did not glorify himself to become High Priest. 
Rather it was God who glorified him thus when he said, “Thou art a 
priest forever after the order of Melchizedek.” It is true that the writer 
does not expressly indicate the time at which Christ entered on his office 
of priest or became priest. But he seems to speak at least of his appoint- 
ment to the office as occurring in the preincarnate period. It is closely 
associated with God’s address to him in 5:5 asSon: ‘‘Thou art my Son, 
this day have I begotten thee.’”’ This would seem to show that the 
writer uses the title “the Christ’ of the preincarnate person. This 
seems the more likely as the writer immediately after speaks of this 
person whom he has just before called ‘‘the Christ” as offering prayers 
and learning obedience ‘‘in the days of his flesh.” 

The difficult phrase in 11:26, “‘esteeming the reproach of the Christ 
greater wealth than the treasures of Egypt,” is also most naturally 
interpreted by taking the Christ to denote the preincarnate person, the 
Logos. The phrase must be taken as an exact parallel of the thought 
in 13:13. The latter verse in its context can only mean that that 
reproach (strictly speaking only a similar reproach) which the Christ 
bore in being ignominiously thrust out of the city and crucified, they too 
must bear as partners with him who is the ever-living one. Transferring 
this interpretation to the phrase “the reproach of the Christ” in 11:26, 
it means that in suffering with the people of God Moses was bearing such 
reproach as the Christ bore in his life and death on earth. But how 
could the writer of Hebrews say this truly of Moses? ‘The most natural 
explanation seems to be that here too the writer uses the title “the 
Christ” of the preincarnate one, the Logos. This view is strengthened 
by the fact that Philo too conceives the Logos to be active in the Old 
Testament history of Israel. 

There are several who insist strongly on the full mystical significance 
of these passages (11:26; 13:13), notably Delitzsch.1 The thought is 
similar indeed to that of Paul, especially as expressed in I Cor. 10:4; 


Epistle to the Hebrews, II, transl. 
390 


THE CHRISTOLOGY OF THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS 65 


If Cor. 1:5; Col. 1:24. But the Pauline mysticism is not found in the 
Epistle to the Hebrews, and one must guard against attributing it to the 
writer here. It is true that these two passages (11:26; 13:13) indicate 
a participation in the sufferings and reproach of Christ, but they do not 
carry the deep mysticism of Paul. They do not justify speaking of 
Moses and the New Testament Christians as suffering as members of 
Christ. This Bleek does when he says that the reproach is that “‘welche 
er [Christus] in seinen Gliedern zu erdulden hat.’’' Bleek’s view of the 
passage is essentially right, but he is unduly influenced by the dominant 
Pauline view when he speaks of believers as suffering as members of the 
body of Christ. That is a Pauline and also a Johannine figure, but a 
conception which does not belong to the writer of Hebrews. This is one 
of the numerous instances in which the thoughts of the writer of Hebrews 
approach very closely to the thoughts of Paul, yet are to be carefully 
differentiated in form, content, and point of view. 

In the two passages just considered, as also in the four remaining 
passages (3:14; 6:1; 9:14; 9:28), the title “the Christ”? denotes the 
Messiah in his official function. In 3:14, “For we are become partners 
of the Christ,” etc., the title is used of the official position of Jesus as 
captain of salvation, the bearer of the blessings of salvation in which 
believers share with him. It is the same thought as in 11:26 and 13:13 
except that there believers were partners with the Christ in reproach 
and sufferings, here they share in the blessings of salvation which he 
brings as Messiah. In 6:1 the title is used of the Messiah in his earthly 
manifestation. It is not, however, the political and economic Messiah 
of the primitive Christian conception. The doctrine of the Messiah is 
twofold, elemental and advanced. But even the elemental doctrine, the 
“doctrine of the beginning of the Christ” (cf. 5:12), consists of the 
catechet'cal doctrines of the developed church, doctrines connected with 
the salvation which he brought who was the anointed of God (cf. 2:3). 
In the remaining two passages the messianic reference, though present, 
is not so distinctive (9:14, 28). 

The title 6 χριστός denotes the Messiah, not as the Jews con- 
ceived him in the earlier Christian period, political and economic and 
saving, but as saving only. He is the fulfiller of Old Testament prophe- 
cies and promises (9:28). He is the official one from God who established 
the new covenant and mediated through his sacrifice and High-Priesthood 
(9:14 ff.) the blessings of salvation and of the future messianic age. As 
such he is also pre-existent, active in Old Testament history and in the 


t Bleek, Commentar tiber den Hebréer-Brief, ΤΙ, S. 803. 
391 


66 HISTORICAL AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES 


creation of the world. This conception, however, is rather that of the 
Logos than that of the pre-existent Messiah of late Judaism. In 
Hebrews the title has largely lost its original import and has become a 
conventional term or a mere name. 


2. THE APOSTLE (ὁ ἀπόστολος) 

The word ἀπόστολος in the double title applied to Jesus (Heb. 3:1) 
is, as Bleek says,’ “ganz eigenthiimlich.”” But perhaps not so altogether 
peculiar as it has seemed to Bleek and to many early interpreters on 
account of the fact that there has been a persistent but entirely mistaken 
tendency to associate the term with the twelve apostles, including Paul. 
This application of the term to the twelve persons who had seen the 
Lord and who could do characteristic apostolic deeds? is apparently 
an altogether special and almost technical use of the word. This use 
may have developed in a measure owing to the insistence of Paul that he 
too belonged to this select apostolic circle because he had seen the Lord.3 
At any rate it is clear that this technical use of the word had been over- 
emphasized to the exclusion of the general force of the word which held 
good both before and after this technical use.4 

This undue emphasis on the technical use has led some to try to 
relate the force of the word in Heb. 3:1 to the twelve apostles.5 It has 
led others to resort to the rabbinic-talmudic use of ΓΟ. as the dele- 
gate, deputy, or representative of the Sanhedrin or community on the 
Day of Atonement.® 

The word ἀπόστολος here (Heb. 3:1) has no special reference to 
the twelve apostles and probably no relation with the talmudic usage. 
The perplexity’ vanishes when it is recognized that though the technical 
use of the word ἀπόστολος overshadowed the regular use, it did not 


τ Bleek, Commentar iiber den Hebrder-Brief, I, S. 379. 

2 Real-Encykl. f. protest. Theologie u. Kirche, 1, art. “‘Apostel.” 

3 Gebhardt τι. Harnack, Texte und Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der altchrist. 
Literatur, ΤΙ, i-ii, 5. 116 fin. 

4Schmidt unduly emphasizes the technical use when he limits the term to the 
twelve: Real-Encykl. f. protest. Theologie u. Kirche, 1, 5. 701. 

5 Bleek, Commentar iiber den Hebréer-Brief, 1, S. 380. 

6 Tholuck, Hebrews, I-II, p. 190; cf. Berach., Joma., I, 5 der Mischna; also Wolf, 
Wetstein, Stuart. 

7 Cf. Tholuck, op. cit., I-II, p. 18 f.: “‘This passage contains the only example of 
the predicate ὁ ἀπόστολος applied to Jesus and has given rise to the puzzling question, 
‘In what passage of the New Testament is Jesus numbered among the Apostles?’ 
These reasons oblige us to look around for some other explanation.” 

392 


THE CHRISTOLOGY OF THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS 67 


destroy it. The Didache shows plainly that the apostles were profes- 
sional itinerant missionary preachers and teachers of the gospelt who 
were expected to observe carefully the rules laid down by the Lord in 
Matt. 10:5 ff. Lucian? tells us of Peregrinus, one of these professional, 
wandering missionary apostles, who fleeced the flock. Harnack says 
that the whole story of Peregrinus is a splendid illustration of chap. 11 
of the Didache.4 

This helps to remove the difficulty which Tholuck felt so keenly and 
which hindered him from giving to the word here (3:1) the meaning 
which he felt was fitting, namely, that Jesus is the “immediate ἀπόστολος 
τοῦ θεοῦ. This is the thought brought out strongly in Justin Martyr.s 
It is true indeed that this is apparently the only place where the noun 
ἀπόστολος is used of Jesus, and this is striking and perhaps suggestive, 
as Bruce says,° of the fresh creative genius of the writer and of the 
unconventional nature of his style. But the thought of this particular 
relation to God is common enough and the corresponding verb (ἀποστέλλω) 
is frequently found.7 

In this passage (3:1) the writer is evidently thinking of the contrast 
he is about to make between Moses and Jesus. It is better therefore 
to consider that he applies both titles “apostle” and “high priest” to 
Moses rather than the latter to Aaron as Keil thinks. This is supported 
by the fact that Philo speaks of Moses as βασιλεύς τε καὶ νομοθέτης 
καὶ ἀρχιερεὺς καὶ προφήτης.9 The word “confession,” rarely used in 
the New Testament,” wavers here as Delitzsch says between the 
subjective™ and objective,” being specifically neither the one nor the 
other but inclusive of both. It denotes not an objective statement or 
creeds but rather the public attitude or avowal of allegiance to Chris- 
tianity taken upon themselves by all Christians. It is objective, not in 
the sense of denoting any definite statement or creed, but as denoting a 


τ Didache 11:3 ff. 4 Texte und Untersuchungen, II, i-ii S. 38. 
2 125-200 A.D. 5 Dial. 75. 
3 Lucian, Peregr. Prot., 11. 6 Bruce, Epistle to the Hebrews, p. 131. 


7 Luke 4:43; 9:48; 10:16; Acts 3:20-26; Gal. 4:4; John 17:3-18, et passim. 
8 Keil, Commentar iiber den Hebréer-Brief, S. 87. 

9 De vita Mosis, II, (Cohn ed., III). 

70 Only in II Cor. 9:13; I Tim. 6:12, 13, outside of Heb. 3:1; 4:14; 10:23. 

1 See Thayer, N.T. Lexicon, s.v._ 

τ Preuschen, Handwérterbuch zum N.T., says active and passive. 

13 Georg Hollmann, Die Schriften des Neuen Testaments, 2. Aufl. II, S. 456. 


393 


68 HISTORICAL AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES 


great new system in which Jesus is God’s delegate and representative in 
contrast with the old in which Moses was God’s delegate and representa- 
tive. The significance of the word ‘‘apostle” (3:1) is therefore an 
expression of the thought of λαλεῖν, as used in 1:1, 2 of the Son asa 
revealer of God superior to the prophets, and in 2:2 f., as a revealer of 
God superior to the angels. The phrase λαλοῦντες τὸν λόγον τοῦ θεοῦ 
is the phrase regularly used of the professional itinerant apostles, 
both in Hebrews (cf. 13:7, 17, 24) and in the church generally. Com- 
pared with these apostles Jesus is the apostle of the confession who 
really brings salvation. He is God’s commissioned delegate and rep- 
resentative both to declare and to consummate the salvation which is 
the heart of the new confession (5: 10).? 


3. THE FIRSTBORN (ὁ πρωτότοκοΞ) 


The title 6 πρωτότοκος used of Christ only in 1:6 is rather difficult 
of explanation. It is a word that is exceedingly common in its literal 
meaning in the Septuagint and comparatively common there in its 
figurative uses. It is found four times in the Apostolic Fathers—twice 
in its literal use, twice in its figurative use. The word ὁ zpwrdyovos, 
which is identical in meaning, is used frequently by Philo of the Logos. 
This form is found also in one passage in the Septuagint (Sir. 36:17), 
though even here one manuscript has the other form. It is an evidence 
of the dominating power of the strictly Palestinian literature and thought 
that the form πρωτότοκος is the only one found in the Epistle to the 
Hebrews, and indeed in the New Testament. 

Outside of Hebrews this word ‘“‘firstborn”’ occurs five times in the 
New Testament, viz., Luke 2:7; Rom. 8:29; Col. 1:15, 18; Rev. 1:5, 
and in each case it is modified in some definite way. In Hebrews it is 
found in three passages, viz., 1:6; 11:28; 12:23. In its literal meaning 
of “firstborn” it needs no explanation. In its figurative use it has two 
meanings. First, it denotes, not physical origin, but a relationship of 
likeness or similarity of character, such as generally springs from physical 
origin. This use of the word is not found in the New Testament, but 
the thought is found in Jesus’ words to the Jews accusing them that they 
were of their father the devil (John 8:44). Two cases of this use of the 
word are found in the Apostolic Fathers. In the Martyrdom of Poly- 
carp, Epilogue 2, as given in the Moscow MS, Polycarp says to the 
heretic Marcion, “1 recognize, I recognize the firstborn of Satan.” 


tCf. on this whole subject Lightfoot, Galatians, pp. 92 ff., and especially 
Harnack, Texte und Untersuchungen, ΤΙ, i-ii, S. 93 ff., specifically S. 110, ἢ. 23.1. 


394 


THE CHRISTOLOGY OF THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS 69 


The same phrase recurs in Polycarp’s Epistle to the Philippians 7:1. 
The word in this use denotes the highest possible degree of likeness and 
similarity of character. 

In the second figurative use of the word the two ideas of relationship 
and likeness prominent in the first use become more or less latent, and 
the two ideas of priority and superiority or pre-eminence are strongly 
emphasized. These two ideas are also abstracted very easily and 
naturally from the literal meaning “firstborn.” Priority in time is 
especially emphasized in Col. 1:18; Rev. 1:5, and Heb. 12:23, though 
the ideas of relationship and superiority are not altogether lacking, as 
the context in each case plainly shows. In Col. 1:15 and Rom. 8:29, 
on the other hand, the emphasis is on rank. It denotes the superiority, 
supremacy, pre-eminence such as belongs only to a firstborn son. In 
these two passages also, as the context shows, the idea of relationship 
(not physical, of course, but possibly metaphysical) is comparatively 
strong. 

Of the three passages in Hebrews containing the word, that in 11:28 
is literaland simple. In 12:23 the use of the word, and the whole passage 
in which it occurs, cause considerable difficulty. That interpretation is 
most natural which makes the word “‘firstborn” refer not to men (men 
are referred to later under the category of “just men made perfect”), 
but to the angels, who are firstborn in the sense of having been created 
before men. 

There are, thus, three prominent ideas in the figurative use of 
πρωτότοκος: (1) priority in time; (2) relationship of some sort not 
physical, issuing in ethical likeness, similarity of character; (3) superi- 
ority, supremacy, pre-eminence such as the firstborn son enjoys; but 
that in which precisely this pre-eminence consists must be gathered from 
the general context. 

It is a plausible suggestion that the word “firstborn’’ here denotes a 
relation of Christ primarily to the world. There is something in the im- 
mediate context to support this. And there is a very interesting parallel 
to the middle phrase of 1:2 in the Septuagint, Ps. 88 (89): 25-28, where 
God is spoken of as exalting his chosen and anointed servant David over 
the sea and the rivers and the earth and the kings of the earth. The 
psalm was interpreted messianically and has many striking parallels to 
Hebrews. In vs. 27, “I also will make him my firstborn the highest of 
the kings of the earth,’’ the same word is used as in Heb. 1:2, “whom He 
made heir of all things.” The psalm must have been familiar to the 
writer of Hebrews and probably this passage was in his mind. One 

395 


70 HISTORICAL AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES 


might then assume that in the thought of the writer πρωτότοκος was 
synonymous with κληρονόμον πάντων of 1:2, and that therefore the 
word denotes here primarily a relation of Christ to the world as the 
sum-total of things. But the context does not sufficiently support this 
exceedingly plausible interpretation of the word. The word translated 
“‘world”’ in this verse does not denote the world as the sum-total of 
things, but rather the world as the dwelling-place of human beings, the 
inhabited earth. Thus there is no ground in the context for identifying 
the firstborn in 1:6 with the heir of all things in 1:2. Moreover, the 
relation of 1:2 with Ps. 88 (89):28, while probable enough, would not 
justify the extreme inference of identifying “firstborn” of 1:6 with 
“heir of all things”’ of 1:2. 

That the word “firstborn” of 1:6 should be used so absolutely and 
without any qualifications suggests rather that its significance must be 
taken from the immediate context. If so, it must be taken as practically 
equal to 6 vids, and denotes therefore primarily a relation to God, a 
relation which is not further defined, a relation such as angels do not 
enjoy, viz., the relation of honor, responsibility, love, and devotion to 
God which can most fittingly be described as the relation of a firstborn 
son to a father. 

It is difficult to state more definitely the author’s idea of this relation- 
ship of Christ to God. Its uniqueness is emphasized by contrast with 
the world of angels, men, and things. As in the ancient world the 
relationship of the firstborn son to the father was superior to that of the 
other sons and daughters, so the relation of Christ to God was superior to 
that of the angels. The word in itself need not imply pre-existence and 
essential relationship to God (cf. Exod. 4:22; Jer. (31:9), but in our 
writer’s thought it probably implies both. 


4. THE LORD (ὁ κύριος) 


For the interpretation of this title it will be well, first, to present 
an outline of the development of the meaning of κύριος in the New 
Testament writings, showing that the word in its meaning is Hebraic 
and Aramaic, not Greek in origin, and that the meaning of the word was 
greatly influenced by associations with the Jewish messianic concept 
and later by associations with the actual Greek word κύριος as it was 
used in the Graeco-Roman world, so that it came to have a greatly 
heightened significance, a significance never indeed equal to θεός yet 
closely approaching it. In the second place, we must investigate the use 
of the title κύριος in Hebrews, and its place in the general development. 

396 


THE CHRISTOLOGY OF THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS 71 


There were three Hebrew words which in the Septuagint were trans- 
lated by κύριος, Tim", DNTDN, and “JON. Of these three, the first, 
mim, is the peculiar name of the God of the Israelites, which came 
later to be reckoned as too sacred for pronunciation. Hence the 
word “JIN was pronounced in its place. The second word, DyTDR , 
was occasionally translated by κύριος in the Septuagint, but more 
frequently by θεός, which is its regular equivalent in the New Testament. 
Two words, x, and the possibly later mS , which are singular forms 
and which seem to be related to OyTON:, are also translated by κύριος, 
but they occur rarely. The third word, ΠΝ, “my Lord,” does not 


often occur in reference to God but is translated by κύριος. Κύριος 
thus does triple work in the Septuagint as a designation for God, and 
this in addition to its being used to translate some of these words when 
they do not denote God, especially "ΒΝ, since all except m7 and 
ΠΝ have other uses in addition to denoting God. 

Thus the word κύριος was exceedingly well known to the New 
Testament writers from Old Testament usage. For this reason it would 
come readily to the mind of New Testament writers as a title of Christ 
when they spoke of him or wrote of him in Greek. This would be 
especially true after Christ’s resurrection and exaltation,? because of 
numerous Old Testament quotations in which κύριος is applied to Christ 
as Messiah even where in the original the application was clearly to God 
(cf. Heb. 1:10). Wernle holds that Paul substituted κύριος for Χριστός 
as being more suggestive and meaningful to Greeks;3 and Deissmann 
emphasizes strongly the fact that Paul’s usage of the term as well as the 
New Testament usage in general arises as at the same time a parallel to, 
and a contrast with, oriental usage of the word in designation of princes 
and kings. This oriental usage conquered the western world, being 
applied to the Roman emperors, probably to Nero first.4 But this is 
putting a greater weight on Greek influence than the facts warrant. No 
doubt Graeco-Roman usage influenced Christian usage, but as Case 
shows, there is some evidence and much probability that an equivalent 


t Many scholars hold that x, the plural of which would be py , is not related 
to D7 ὌΝ; ; cf. Brown, Briggs, aad Driver, and Buhl’s Gesenius. 


2Cf. Paul, Phil. 2:9 ff., which implies that the confession is a result of the 
exaltation. 


3 Die Anfange unserer Religion, 2. Aufl., S. 176. 

4 Licht vom Osten, S. 257. 

5 “Κύριος as a title for Christ,” Journal of Biblical Literature, XXVI, 1907. 
397 


12 HISTORICAL AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES 


of the Greek title κύριος was applied to Jesus during his life. In the 
first place, this would be entirely natural to Semitic usage. Oriental 
usage in general, both in the present day and as far back as early 
Egyptian times, uses a title like κύριος: only for persons recognized as 
superiors in education, station in life, etc. In the second place, more 
definite justification for carrying this title back to the Aramaic-speaking 
Jews of Christ’s own lifetime is found in the preservation of the watch- 
word μαρανάθα, “Our Lord cometh,” or “Come, O Lord!” (cf. I Cor. 
16:22) by Paul. Here 173 is the Aramaic for “Our Lord,’ and must 
be a stray bit of primitive tradition fortunately preserved for us by 
Paul. 

This introduces the intermediate element of Aramaic usage, for it is 
agreed that the originals of Jesus’ teachings were given in Aramaic. It 
is agreed too that the first disciples of Jesus spoke of him as “Lord,” and 
so must have used some form of "73 ,4 to say nothing of 3”. 


Thus three distinct factors contributed to the significance of the title 
κύριος in the New Testament field. First, there was the Old Testament 
usage, especially of “JIN as it is met by and passes into the Aramaic 
usage of "72, which is no doubt, as Case shows, the origin of the applica- 
tion of the title ‘‘Lord”’ to Christ.s Concomitant with this there was 
the influence of the Septuagint in its oft repeated κύριος for mT, “IN, 
and occasionally for DVTON (ON and FIDN). There is, thirdly, the 
somewhat later influence of Graeco-Roman usage which Wernle and 
Deissmann (also in less degree Dalman) emphasize as being specially 
manifest in New Testament writings. There is need of more detailed 


τ Arabic chawaga or effendi=our “Mister”; Aramaic "9A or 73°1, 

2 Cf. Johannes Weiss, Christus, Die Anfange des Dogmas, S. 24. 

3 It may be added that in spite of John’s interpretation διδάσκαλε, the Aramaic 
title Rabbi, Rabboni would also find natural equivalent in Greek in κύριε, an equiva- 
lent apparently more fitting in some places than the technical term διδάσκαλε which 
John and Matthew use; cf. Mark 10:51; John 20:16. There is nothing intrinsically 
in 37 to make it specifically applicable to teachers. The Greek διδάσκαλος in the 
Graeco-Roman world was not a solemnly respectful word, such as the Aramaic 2). 
Κύριος on the other hand would carry with it the high tone of respect and reverence 
which the oriental meant to convey when he addressed his teacher as ‘‘ Rabbi.” 
Moreover the word 2) is often translated by κύριος, e.g., noon “1 -- κύριος τοῦ στρατοῦ 
Ξεστρατηγός. 

4 ἐδ ΠΩ, the Lord; 74, my Lord; 77, our Lord. 

5 Cf. also J. Weiss, Christus, ‘Es ist aber nicht zu bezweifeln, dass schon in der 
judenchristlichen Urgemeinde der Erhéhte ‘Herr,’ ‘unser Herr’ genannt worden 
ist” (S. 24). 

398 


THE CHRISTOLOGY OF THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS 73 


and thorough study into the interworking of these three influences in 
their contribution to the meaning of κύριος. Case’s presentation is of 
great service but seems to leave the three elements too much detached. 
The application to Jesus of the title “lord” (772) by his Aramaic-speaking 
followers would begin with his disciples and would be almost equal to 
the title διδάσκαλος, the Aramaic word being used frequently (as also 
"2", rabbi) as a title of respect. This would extend as the circle 
of Christ’s followers extended and as their respect and reverence for 
him increased. When they recognized in him their Messiah, and 
especially after his resurrection and exaltation, the title would begin to 
carry an enlarged content. At this stage the influence of the Septuagint 
use of κύριος would become exerted strongly from passages in the Old 
Testament which were plainly messianic. This would be the period of 
extension beyond the Palestinian Aramaic usage into the larger extra- 
Palestinian Greek usage. But it is unlikely that the transition would 
be from the Aramaic "73 to κύριος as it was used in the extra-Palestinian 
Graeco-Roman world with which Paul was familiar. Rather it is probable 
that this transition was mediated by the thought of the Aramaic 
N72 or 2 passing into that of κύριος as it was used in the Septuagint 
for "ἽΝ . The two were closely allied, though of course κύριος as used 


in the Septuagint covered a larger field. Then, as Case says,’ owing to 
their enlarged conception of Christ’s exaltation and mission they would 
apply to Christ passages of the Septuagint where κύριος was used of 
God? without however intending to identify Christ with Jehovah in 
significance and glory. 

They were conscious of the difference between God and Christ, so 
that they increasingly reserved the word θεός for God but increasingly 
applied the word κύριος to Christ, since the latter was a broader term 
and though also applicable to God was not so lofty and distinctive as 
Θεός. That all the evangelists should change the Hebrew and Sep- 
tuagint “paths of our God” of Mark 1:3 and parallels to “his paths” 
is a striking instance in support of this. 

A little later than this influence of the Septuagint, but largely parallel 
with it, would come the influence of the non-biblical Greek usage of 
κύριος. This non-biblical usage, though it cannot be thought of as 
originating and contributing the word as a title of Jesus, must have had 
considerable influence in altering and enlarging the content of the title 


1 Case, op. cit., p. 157. 
2 For a or DTN : 3 Case, op. cit., p. 158. 
399 


74 HISTORICAL AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES 


as applied to Christ. Deissmann especially exhibits the use of κύριος 
in the Graeco-Roman world.? Its highest content in Graeco-Roman 
usage is found in its application to the Roman emperor as master of the 
world. It is expressive of an increasingly high regard and homage, 
though not of the veneration expressed by θεός which is indicative 
in the Graeco-Roman world of deification. The word κύριος is used 
of Nero in an Oxyrhynchus papyrus containing a letter of the Egyptian 
Harmiusis to the official Papiskos dated July 24, 66 a.D.2— An Egyptian 
document of 54 A.D. applies the title to Claudius.3 

It is evident, then, that this was a common title of the Roman 
emperors in the time of Paul, and Paul perhaps had this title of the 
emperors in mind when in I Cor. 8:5, 6 he says that though there are 
many “lords,” yet for Christians there is but one “‘Lord,”’ Jesus Christ. 
This may be the beginning of the influence upon the word by Graeco- 
Roman usage which, when developed, issues in the attitude of Polycarp 
(155 A.D.), who, when the Roman officials, Herod and Nicetes, urge him 
to recant by saying, ‘‘What wrong can there be in saying ‘Caesar [is] 
Lord’ ?” refuses and prefers death.4 Case holds that it was from no 
reluctance to grant the title κύριος to Caesar that Polycarp refused to 
say ‘Caesar [is] Lord,” but because he “refused to recognize the 
supremacy of Caesar as compared with the loyalty due to Christ.’’s 
But this is not a natural interpretation in view of the fact that in another 
place Polycarp says, “We have been taught to pay respect in every way 
that is fitting—when such respect is not hurtful to ourselves—to powers 
and authorities appointed by God.”® Case is tempted to minimize the 
significance which the title κύριος as used of emperors and of Christ 
had acquired by this time. It is true that its significance is not equal 
to that of θεός, but its frequent association with θεός in emperor- 
worship had given it a somewhat higher connotation which carried with 
it some of the atmosphere of θεός. Had the Christian conscience of the 
time of Polycarp been able to distinguish between κύριος used of the 
moral and spiritual lordship of Christ and κύριος used of the temporal 
lordship of Caesar, Polycarp might have called Caesar “Lord.” There 
was no inherent reason why the “‘supremacy of Caesar”’ and the “loyalty 
due to Christ”’ should clash except just this, that the word κύριος as used 


τ Licht vom Osten, S. 253 ff. 
2 Grenfell and Hunt, The Oxyrhynchus Papyri, I1, No. 246; also Licht vom Osten, 
Satur 
3 Licht vom Osten, S. 256, and Oxyrhynchus Papyri, No. 37. 
4 Martyrium Polycar pi, 8:2. 5 Ibid., p. τότ. 6 Martyr. Polcarp. 10:2. 
400 


THE CHRISTOLOGY OF THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS 75 


alike of Caesar and of Christ had acquired a sort of divine connotation, 
probably from its associations with θεός. So the Christian conscience, 
as in the case of Polycarp, could not ascribe the title κύριος to Caesar. 

From the beginnings of the work of Paul to the martyrdom of 
Polycarp is a period of a hundred years. During this period the word 
κύριος gradually developed a significance approaching that of θεός, 
a significance which tended to supersede its original meaning and 
precluded its being applied by the Christian conscience to anyone but 
Christ. It is not necessarily contradictory to this view that during the 
same period the “simpler form κύριος became the current expression,”? 
and that its “use as a mere name tended to supplant its distinctively 
title import.”’ However, by Polycarp’s time its use as a mere name had 
not actually supplanted its title import. Polycarp did not die for a mere 
name. That the “term in Greek usage early became little more than a 
mere proper name . . . . employed in referring to him [Christ] in his 
earthly career with no more heightened sense than was attached to the 
name Jesus” is quite probable, but the ‘“‘heightened sense”’ lay latent in 
the term as a title and could arise at any moment of necessity with 
marvelous dynamic force, as in the case of Polycarp. 

Case well says that “if any special significance associates with the 
word when applied to Jesus it is his person rather than the word itself 
in which the special meaning inheres.”’ From the Aramaic beginnings 
when the word "V/A is used of Jesus by his followers as a title of respect, 
due to his influence and authority as a teacher, to its highest significance 
as a title which cannot be given to any other than Christ, the word 
κύριος expands in content so as to contain and express what Jesus as 
Messiah and exalted Savior became in the consciousness and experience 
of his followers, viz., a unique authority in the realm of the moral and 
spiritual, the realm of the conscience and the soul.? 

Further, it is necessary to investigate the use of κύριος in Hebrews 
and to attempt to fit it into its place in the general development. 
The instances of the use of κύριος in Hebrews are in all sixteen, twelve 
being instances where the title clearly refers to God; four being 

τ Case, op. cit., p. 161. 


2 Cf. the brief but interesting statement of Johannes Weiss in Christus on this 
title ‘Der Herr,” 5. 24-20. 

3 Ten in quotations, 7:21=Ps. 110:4; 8:8=Jer. 31:31; 8:9=Jer. 31:32; 8:10= 
Jer. 31:33; 8:11=Jer. 31:34; 10:16=8:10=Jer. 31:33; 10:30=Ps. 135:14; 12:5= 
Prov. 3:11; 12:6=Prov. 3:12; 13:6=Ps. 118:6; two in the author’s own usage, 8:2; 
12:14. In all the former, the word corresponding to κύριος in the original Hebrew 
is ΤΠ, 

401 


70 HISTORICAL AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES 


instances where the title as clearly refers to Jesus (1:10=Ps. 102:26;% 
2:3; 7:14; 13:20). The title, therefore, occurs quite rarely in Hebrews as 
compared with its occurrences in Paul’s writings. 

The only quotation in Hebrews in which the word is used of Christ, 
though the original clearly referred to God, is 1:10=Ps. 102:26. Here 
it seems that the title κύριε misled the Septuagint reader and also the 
writer of Hebrews into the view that the psalm was messianic.? This 
transference may have been made easier by the fact that some parts of 
the psalm (cf. vss. 21, 22, 28) have a touch of the typical messianic 
outlook.3 Kuenen is hardly right when he says κύριε “has been adopted 
from the Greek version and does not occur in the original.”’ As has been 
said before, it may well be considered a translation of "ὮΝ in the second 
verse before (LXX, vs. 24; Heb. vs. 25) which is not translated in the 
corresponding Septuagint verse. Such an addition would not be 
impossible, but it is not necessary to assume it in this passage. 

In any case Kuenen seems to be substantially right in saying that 
such an example as this shows, as numerous other examples in the New 
Testament show, that by this time the Christians had come to look upon 
κύριος as a title of the Messiah. When they had taken this step it was 
an easy and slight advance to refer many passages to Jesus as Messiah 
where κύριος denotes not the Messiah but Jehovah himself and where, 
as here, the passages have little if any messianic import. This passage, 
therefore, would show that Hebrews was written when it was quite 
common to attribute κύριος as a title of the Messiah to Jesus and under 
this title to apply passages to Jesus which, before the increasing domina- 
tion of Jesus’ character and person, had been understood only of God. 

Heb. 2:3 contains the first case of the application of the title κύριος 
to Jesus in the writer’s own words, ‘“‘ How shall we escape if we neglect 
so great salvation which, having at the first been spoken by the Lord, 
was confirmed unto us by those who heard?” This is one of the com- 
paratively few but significant passages (cf. Heb. 5:7) which put the 
writer en rapport with the primitive Christian tradition. Its whole 
atmosphere is quite distinct from that which characterizes the writer’s 
conception of salvation as presented by him in the rest of the epistle.4 

«Heb. 1:10 is a quotation in which κύριε seems at first sight to be added, but 


where more probably it is a translation of "δὲ , occurring in vs. 24 of the Hebrew, 
but not translated in the corresponding verse of the Septuagint. 


2 Cf. Kuenen, The Propheis and Prophecy in Israel, p. 468. 
3 Johnson, The Quotations of the New Testament from the Old, pp. 270 ff. 


4Cf. his peculiar conception of the rest of God, the nature of faith, the High- 


Priesthood of Jesus. 
402 


THE CHRISTOLOGY OF THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS Ti 


And yet the writer himself seems not to be conscious of the fact that this 
salvation which he represents as being first spoken by Jesus must have 
been something widely different from, not to say at variance with, 
the salvation which the writer sets forth by his peculiar Alexandrian 
exegetical methods. One might be inclined to consider this phrase as 
an interpolation; yet there is no ground whatever for rejecting the 
phrase except this contrast between the salvation which Jesus actually 
preached and the salvation which the writer sets forth in his epistle. 
The writers of the New Testament were not conscious of the sharp 
contrast which the modern man sets up between the Jesus of history and 
the Christ of faith and experience. To the writer of Hebrews they 
were, if not identical, at least vitally and essentially related as this 
passage shows. 

The fact is that in this passage (2:3, 4) there is a genuine historical 
reminiscence with all the atmosphere of that earlier period preceding 
and immediately succeeding the death and resurrection of Jesus—the 
atmosphere of the early Christian community. The title τοῦ κυρίου 
as well as the word σωτηρία retain here a primitive color and content 
cognate to that period. The title τοῦ κυρίου has here a meaning largely 
divested of Septuagint and Graeco-Roman influence. It carries with it 
a high religious sense and denotes the Christ as the recognized leader, 
teacher and spiritual guide and Savior of the primitive community of 
Christians. It is possibly an example of a use of the title to denote 
Jesus in his earthly career which Case refers to as quite common.' The 
author, of course, takes it in its higher significance. 

A somewhat similar connotation inheres in the title as it is used in 
7:14 and 13:20, the only other two passages of the author’s own words 
in which the title is used of Jesus. In 7:14 the title is used in the strong 
spiritual sense of religious teacher and leader, devotion to whom gives 
a consciousness of unity (ἡμῶν) to Christians. The connotation of 
Messiahship is assumed and carried with it, though the idea as such is 
not expressed by it. So in 13:20, where the associations reveal the high 
significance which the title has for the writer and his readers. Their 
Lord is mediator of the new covenant, the great shepherd of the sheep, 
the one whom God raised from the dead. But the title itself denotes 
unique religious control and supremacy of the highest type. The 
addition of the name “ Jesus”’ gives here (13:20) again the atmosphere 
οἱ the earthly life. 

The writer also uses κύριος of God, but only twice in his own words, 


Op. cit., p. 260. 
403 


78 HISTORICAL AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES 


viz., 8:2, where he speaks of God as having established the true taber- 
nacle, and 12:14 where he says that without holiness no one shall see the 
Lord. In both cases the title has the article as when used of Jesus. 
The writer’s regular designation of God is Θεός, and it is perhaps 
somewhat indicative of the connotation of κύριος that in 8:2, where 
Θεός would afford the natura] contrast to ἄνθρωπος, ὁ κύριος should be 
used in preference. Biesenthal' finds in it a hint that Hebrews was 
written originally in Hebrew, as otherwise the writer would certainly 
have used ὁ Θεός, which is the proper contrast to ἄνθρωπος. This, of 
course, is untenable; but this particular occurrence may fairly be taken 
as indicative of how even at this time the title κύριος carried the 
Θεός atmosphere with it (cf. 13:3). 

To sum up with reference to κύριος. It arose in Aramaic (2) 
as the title regularly applied to honored and influential persons and 
specifically to Jesus as religious teacher. When the gospel came to be 
expressed in Greek, especially when it moved out into the Graeco- 
Roman world, the title κύριος was used, probably at first suggested by 
and under the influence of the Septuagint usage, where the title was used 
of the Messiah as well as of Jehovah. Under influence of the Septuagint 
usage and somewhat later under the influence of the contrast with 
Graeco-Roman usage, especially in emperor-worship, the content of the - 
title κύριος as applied to Christ was extended and heightened. Though 
one might naturally expect to find it, there is no evidence in Hebrews of 
the latter influence. The word has on the one hand the connotation of 
the earthly Jesus as supreme religious teacher and Savior, leader and 
guide in the realm of spirit (7:14; 13:20). On the other hand it mani- 
fests the heightening of Septuagint influence in 1:10 which originally 
referred to God (Jehovah) and was not distinctly messianic. It is not 
permissible, however, to infer from this passage that the writer of 
Hebrews meant to place Jesus on an equality with God. The growing 
content and heightened force of the word κύριος sprang originally from 
the increasing impression Jesus made upon his followers in their faith 
and experience of him, especially after his death and resurrection. It is 
hardly proper to infer anything more from κύριος as it is used in this 
epistle than the supreme significance of Jesus in the realm of religion 
and the spirit. 

5. THE SON (6 vids) 

The phrase Son of Man occurs in the Epistle to the Hebrews but once 

(2:6) in a quotation from Ps. 8:5. It does not refer to Jesus (except 


t Der A postel Paulus an die Hebrder, S. 210. 
404 


THE CHRISTOLOGY OF THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS 79 


indirectly), being used both in the original and in the quotation as a 
variant for “man,” with possibly a slight increase of emphasis on the 
weakness of human nature. The title “Son,” on the other hand, occurs 
eleven times with reference to Jesus (1:2, 5, 8; 3:6; 4:14; 5:5, ὃ; 6:6; 
733, 28; 10:20). 

Of the remaining eleven occurrences of the word “son”’ in the epistle, 
two (11:21 and 12:7b) are used of direct physical descent, one (11:24) 
of sonship by adoption in the human sphere, two (7:5; 11:22) of indirect 
physical descent; five other occurrences" exhibit the writer’s figurative 
religious use of the word as denoting the ethical relation of filial obedience 
and divine love as between faithful Christians and God. These last five 
passages indicate in all probability the meaning of the word in 2:10 
where the followers of Christ are called ‘‘sons.’”’ The word is not 
supernatural or metaphysical in its content, but denotes the same 
ethico-religious-relation to God. 

a) Development of the conception of sonship.—In the development of 
the meaning of the title “‘Son,”’ three main phases are readily discerned: 
(x) the literal-physical, (2) the figurative-ethical, and (3) the divine- 
metaphysical. The first may be passed over. In the second phase the 
writers of the Old Testament use the word “Son”’ figuratively to denote 
a special relation of dignity and favor based upon a sympathetic likeness 
of character whether good or bad. As applied to a relation to God the 
whole people of Israel felt themselves to be the favored nation in especial 
relation to God as “‘Son”’ (Exod. 4:22, 23).2 The king as representative 
of the whole nation was called Son of God.3 80 all the theocratic kings 
came to be called Sons of God in this special sense, until finally the title is 
applied to the ideal King of the future, the Messiah, at least in passages 
which were interpreted messianically (Ps. 89:27, 28; cf. also IV Ezra 
7:28; 13:28).4 Thisis the Semitic idea which never fully passes into the 
metaphysical, though in later Judaism there is an advance in this direc- 
tions The Semitic idea “‘Son of God”’ is figurative, ethical, religious. 

It is clear that the divine-metaphysical meaning of the phrase 
“Son of God” is found within the New Testament, though there is 
much dispute and uncertainty as to specific instances. The divine- 


t Heb. 12:5 (twice), 6, γα, 8. 
2 Cf. Holtzmann, Neutestamenitliche Theologie, 1, 5. 265 f. 
ἘΠ Sam. 7:14; Ps. 2:7; 82:6; 89:27, 28. 
4 Wellhausen, Skizzen und Vorarbeiten, Heit VI, 5. 219. Gunkel in Kautzsch, 
A pocryphen u. Pseudepigraphen, ΤΙ, S. 344; Volz, Jiidische Eschatologie, S. 213. 
5 Volz, op. cit., sec. 35, Ia, S. 213. 
405 


80 HISTORICAL AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES 


metaphysical meaning, however, is clear in such passages as Luke 
1:32-35, as also in Matthew. How much earlier than Luke and 
Matthew the metaphysical use is to be seen is a question beset with 
many difficulties. But it is plain that somewhere between the historical 
theocratic use of the Old Testament and the divine-metaphysical use of 
some parts of the New Testament this radical change in the meaning of 
the phrase “‘Son of God”’ as applied in the New Testament to Jesus was 
brought about. 

Wernle attributes the origin of this metaphysical use to Paul.t He 
says that the phrase had been used by the earliest community, but “in 
a very harmless sense,’”’ denoting Jesus as ‘‘the favorite of God, his 
confidant, knowing his ways better than anyone else.” But it may be 
seriously questioned whether Wernle is not here as in other places over- 
estimating the influence of Paul as against the primitive Christian com- 
munity. This view apparently forces Wernle into holding that the 
reason set forth by the Gospels for the condemnation of Jesus is unhis- 
torical. Wernle says that the accusation of blasphemy was the result 
of the charge of orthodox Jews against Christians that they were marring 
monotheism by making a second God out of Jesus.?__ It is hard to believe 
that this is merely a reflection of the debates between Christians and 
Jews in the postresurrection period. If the accusation of blasphemy 
is not historical, no formal ground of condemnation has been handed 
down tous. Assuming it to be historical it would follow that the Jewish 
leaders and rulers at least felt that there was such a content in the 
phrase “Son of God,’’4 that for such a one as Jesus to claim to be such was 
supreme blasphemy. 

But does this of necessity imply the dogmatic metaphysical meaning 
of the phrase in the thought of the rulers of the Jews? Holtzmann takes 
the view that it does not,’ holding that the charge of blasphemy is fully 
accounted for by the fact that such a poor and powerless peasant of 
Galilee should lay claim to such a high official position. Dalman seems 
to waver between two positions. He maintains® that “the assertion of 
messianic rank could not, indeed, in itself have led straightway to a 
death sentence,” holding that a test of his claim according to b. Sah. 
93 ὃ. would in that case have been the necessary step before sentence of 
death. This is not allowing sufficiently for the pressing circumstances, 

t Beginnings of Christianity, 1, p. 250. 2 ΤΠ 16... ἘΠῚ Ὁ: 47- 

3 Cf. Brandt, Evangelische Geschichte, S. 81 ἴ. 

4 Matt. 26:63; Luke 22:70; Mark 14:61, “‘Son of the Blessed.” 


5 Neutest. Theologie, 1, S. 265 f. 6 Dalman, Words of Jesus, p. 313- 
406 


THE CHRISTOLOGY OF THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS 81 


and moreover no test was needed: the thing was plain enough. He 
holds that the blasphemy consisted in the words he added about the Son 
of Man, which constituted a claim to share in God’s majesty. Wrede’s 
position? is by all means the more natural interpretation, viz., that there 
must have been something in the content of “the Christ the Son of the 
Blessed”? (Mark 14:61) which allied it distinctly with God and thus 
constituted it blasphemy. Holtzmann’s emphasis on the insignificance 
and lowliness of Jesus is still necessary to understand properly how a 
conviction of blasphemy could be attained and is well brought out in 
the text by the emphatic ov (Mark 14:61). But it is not of itself 
sufficient. The Christ, the Son of the Blessed, must in the thought of 
the rulers have been ranked with God in some unique sense. 

On the other hand, as Holtzmann’s view does not go far enough to 
explain satisfactorily such blasphemy, so Wrede perhaps goes too far in 
making such a wide separation between the thought of the writer Mark 
and the thought of the high priest and Sanhedrin.s To maintain that 
Mark here considers the title “Son of God” as “‘supernatural and 
metaphysical” is to say what is altogether probable. But to say that 
he reads the meaning back ex post facto into the mouth of the high 
priest is to destroy the historicity of the narrative, and to leave us no 
assigned reason for the sentence of death upon Jesus. The point is that 
if blasphemy in some form is the historical reason for the death of Jesus 
then between the Jewish rulers’ conception of the title “the Christ, the 
Son of God” and Mark’s conception of the same there cannot possibly 
be such a wide divergence that to the latter it was blasphemy but to the 
former not. This does not necessarily mean that the rulers also had 
Mark’s conception of a “supernatural and metaphysical’? Messiah in 
the modern sense, but it does mean that they ranked the Messiah with 
God rather more than with men. 

This is supported by the view that in all probability most of the Jews 
at the time of Jesus conceived the Messiah as supernatural or as super- 
human. This was especially true in apocalyptic circles, but it is a ques- 
tion of debate as to how widespread these apocalyptic views were.‘ 
Volz well notes the varied elements entering into the view of the Messiah 


τ Dalman, Christianity and Judaism, p. 63. 

2Wrede, Das Messiasgeheimnis, S. 74 f. 

3 Tbid., S. 75. 

4 Volz says (Jiidische Eschatologie, S. 212), ‘‘In apokalyptischen Zirkeln dagegen 


wird das eschatologische drama auf einer erhéhten Biihne vorgefiihrt und in ihrem 
iiberirdischen Schauspiel ist auch der Messias eine transcendente Gestalt.” 


407 


82 HISTORICAL AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES 


at this time, but repeatedly emphasizes the fact that the Messiah, 
both as Son of Man, and, though rarely and late, as Son of God, had 
at the time of Jesus come to be viewed as a supernatural, transcendent 
figure. 

This view certainly makes an understanding of the charge of 
blasphemy easier and fits with the facts. It does not necessarily show 
just what conception Jesus had of himself. His hesitation and different 
viewpoint may be expressed in ov εἶπας of Matt. 26:64,2 which was 
probably his real answer rather than the ἐγώ εἰμι of Mark 14:62. 
But it indicates that even in the time of Jesus a view of the Messiah 
prevailed which made it blasphemy for anyone to claim to be such who 
did not do the marvelous divine works of wonder which the Messiah as 
Son of God was expected to do. This distinct advance upon the theo- 
cratic idea of the Messiah may be called the supernatural or superhuman 
idea as over against the metaphysical, which may have been introduced 
in one form by Paul, in another by Matthew and Luke, and in still 
another by the author of the Fourth Gospel. 

Jesus’ own thought as to the meaning of Sonship which he applied to 
himself is a problem beset with many difficulties. He is not represented 
as using the full phrase “‘Son of God”’ as a title for himself, though he 
frequently puts himself in the relation expressed by it—most notably in 
Matt. 11:27. It is impossible here to go into the debate upon this 
striking passage. It seems clear that the accepted reading of Matt. 
11:27 is not the original reading, and equally clear that what seems to 
be the original reading! gives a meaning more cognate with the immediate 
context, less Johannine, less theological and mystical, and more in line 
with the general synoptic teaching. E. F. Scotts sums up the reliable 
results perhaps with too severe a brevity. The passage remains a 


τ Jiidische Eschatologie (passim), especially S. 211 f.; also sec. 21; sec. 35, “Es 
ist ein weiter Weg von dem nationalen menschlichen Davidssohn zu dem ewigen Him- 
melsmenschen und wir kénnen nicht annehmen, dass der Uebergang sich in der Form 
eines allmahlichen innerlichen Fortschreitens vollzogen hatte; vielmehr setzt mit der 
Vorstellung vom transcendentem Himmelsmenschen etwas Neues ein.” 

2 Jour. Bib. Lit., XIII, 45. 

3 See Schmiedel, ‘‘ Die Johannische Stelle in Matthius und Lucas und das Messias- 
bewusstsein Jesu,’ Protestantische Monatshefte, 1900, 5. 1; Johannes Weiss, Die 
Schriften des N. Testaments, I, S. 321; Harnack, The Sayings of Jesus, pp. 272-310, 
where he gives a full list of references to discussions. 

4Harnack, Sayings of Jesus, p. 295: πάντα μοι παρεδόθη ὑπὸ τοῦ πατρός, καὶ 
οὐδεὶς ἔγνω τὸν πατέρα [vel. τίς ἐστιν ὁ πατὴρ] εἰ μὴ ὁ υἱὸς καὶ ᾧ ἂν ὁ υἱὸς ἀποκαλύψῃ. 

5. “An Exegetical Study of Matt. τι: 25-.30,᾿ Biblical World, March, τοτο. 

408 


THE CHRISTOLOGY OF THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS 83 


strong and beautiful expression of Jesus’ consciousness" of an altogether 
unique relation to God which is not exhausted by being described as 
intellectual only,? but grips the deeper reaches of personality involving 
the religious and moral.s Beyond all reasonable doubt it was through 
this unique consciousness of Sonship, to which the high priest and the 
Sanhedrin were blind, that Jesus came to accept the title of Messiah 
which in its official theocratic content with the addition of the super- 
natural was in a sense understood by the rulers.4 

These two aspects of the meaning of the phrase “Son of God,” viz., 
the religio-moral use of Jesus and the theocratic semi-supernatural use 
of the Jews blend and, under the influence of Greek thought and philoso- 
phy, form the later divine-metaphysical idea of Sonship, which is found 
in its initial stages in Paul and more fully developed in Matthew and 
Luke and in the Fourth Gospel. There seems to be considerable proba- 
bility for Sanday’s views (in opposition to Schmidt’s®) that this turn 
toward the metaphysical interpretation under the influence of Greek 
thought goes back at least to Paul and possibly to the first Jerusalem 
community. But it may have taken considerable time for the clear-cut 
Greek metaphysical view to crystallize. Its stages may be seen in the 
comparatively simple Christology of the speeches in the first chapters of 
Acts where Jesus is frequently spoken of as not only Christ and Lord, 
but “servant”? (Greek παῖς), which to Greeks meant “child,” “son.” 
This was further defined by Paul in reference to the resurrection by 


Cf. N. Schmidt, art. “Son of God,” Enc. Bib., sec. 12; Pfleiderer, Urch., I, S. 
445 {.; Brandt, Evangelische Geschichte, p. 561. Probably Johannes Weiss does not 
mean to say that the emended form of the saying cannot go back to Jesus: ‘‘Aber so 
wie uns dieser (in der 2. Strophe Matt. 11:27) iiberliefert ist bietet er uns schwerlich 
ein Wort Jesu, sondern eher ein Stiick Gemeindetheologie.” 


2 Harnack, What Is Christianity? p. 128: ‘‘Rightly understood the name of Son 
means nothing but the knowledge of God.’”’ This is either true or not true accord- 
ing as the wide or narrow meaning is given to the word ‘“‘knowledge.” 


3 Holtzmann, Neutest. Theologie, 1, S. 267: ‘‘die ungehemmte Lebensgemeinschaft 
mit Gott, die unverkiimmerte Beriihrung mit dem Géottlichen..... Was aber 
wir auf dem langen Wege der Reflexion nachzubilden versuchen, das taucht fiir den 
religidsen Genius als unvermittelte und ungebrochene Offenbarung aus den Tiefen, 
seines Gemuthslebens auf. Und zwar Letzteres so, dass das Sohnesbewusstsein sich 
entsprechend der sittlichen Ausfiillung der Gottesidee, die in dem Vaternamen liegt, 
auch durchaus sittlich bestimmt und bedingt fand. Der religiése Genius war zugleich 
ein sittlicher Genius.” 


4Holtzmann, Neutest. Theologie, 1, S. 271; Harnack, Sayings of Jesus, p. 301. 
5 The Life of Christ in Recent Research, pp. 130 f. 
6 Art. “Son of God,” Enc. Bib., sec. 22. 

409 


84 HISTORICAL AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES 


which Jesus was determined the Son of God with power (Rom. 1:4). 
Later the thought was carried back to the transfiguration or to the 
baptism (Mark 9:7 and parallels; Mark 1:11 and parallels), and still 
later to the birth in the infancy-stories of Matthew and Luke. The 
Fourth Gospel carried it back still farther and gave the impetus to the 
fuller metaphysical interpretation of the creeds. 

From this passage in Mark 14:62 it is clear that for the author at 
least the three titles, Son of God, Son of Man, and Messiah become practi- 
cally synonymous. It would be going too far to say that the two titles 
“Son of God” and “Son of Man” were merely synonyms for ‘‘ Messiah”; 
this would be to disregard the various shades of meaning which developed 
in the historical use of the terms. In their origin and original content at 
least they were quite distinct, but at the time of Mark’s writing they 
had converged and almost focused in one common meaning. 

δ) Use of the title ““Son” in Hebrews.—It has been seen above that 
the writer of Hebrews has the distinctly religious Semitic use of the word 
“son” (12:8), as applied to Christians. He has also the thought of 
God as father of all spirit beings, men included (12:9). He does not, 
however, use the term “son” or ‘‘sons” of man or men in general. 
As applied to Jesus there are in all eleven passages where the title “Son” 
or “‘Son of God” occurs; these must receive careful attention. 

Passing over for the present the first case of the use of vids as 
applied to Christ (1:2), the next case is found in the familiar quotation 
of Ps. 2:7 in 1:5, “Thou art my Son; today have I begotten thee,” 
immediately followed by the quotation from II Sam. 7:14, “I shall be 
to him a father and he shall be to me a Son.” It is not necessary here 
to decide whether the king whose installation was celebrated in the 
original psalm was David or Solomon or some other. Nor is it necessary 
to show in what sense or in what way the psalm was referred to the 
ideal future King, the Messiah.?_ It is enough to realize that the passage 
originally had a definite reference to a historic king of Israel who, accord- 
ing to the familiar Semitic idea (Jer. 2:27), was recognized, declared, 
and adopted as God’s Son when he was installed as king over God’s 
people; that later it became by common consent referred to the Messiah,3 
and in this way the writer of the Hebrews uses it of Jesus. 

But this throws the difficulty into the question as to how the writer 

* Cf. Bleek, Commentar iiber den Hebréer-Brief, 1, r10 f; Bathgen, Die Psalmen, 8. 
3; Briggs, Psalms, I, p. 12. 

Σ᾽ Bleek, op. cit., p. 111 f. 

3. ΔῸΒ. 2:2. 269) 11:33; Βαν. 2:27; 12:85) δῶν 5: Ὁ: 

410 


THE CHRISTOLOGY OF THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS 85 


conceives this appellation, which originally was referred to a definite point 
of time, to be applied to Christ whom he clearly considers to be pre- 
existent. Has the reference to a specific point of time which is so 
explicitly brought out by σήμερον quite faded from his thought so that he 
means σήμερον to denote eternity ? Such a meaning, though strange to 
the original (Ps. 2:7), is not strange to Alexandrian usage, and this may 
be another point of contact between the author and Philo.t An interest- 
ing and suggestive use of the word is found in the Epistle to Diognetus 
which seems to mark an advance in effort at precision of thought, or 
perhaps rather an effort to explain that which in Hebrews was left 
unexplained and puzzling.? This quotation would seem to be a distinct 
reference to the passage so frequently upon the lips of primitive Chris- 
tians with regard to Jesus as Messiah (Ps. 2:7). It is further an express 
statement of what lies latent in the thought of the writer to the Hebrews. 
For him too Christ was 6 ἀεὶ [ὦν], but it would seem that in some way 
he conceived of him as at some time constituted or declared ‘“Son.’’ 
For σήμερον in Diognetus cannot mean “‘today”’ of the time at which 
the author is writing. Nor can it be quite equal to ἀεί, from which it is 
so clearly distinguished by a contrast. The word stands between these 
two meanings and denotes a specific point of time at which he who was 
forever, became ‘‘Son.”’ 

This, with less distinctness, is the conception of the writer to the 
Hebrews, rather than the Philo usage of the word denoting “‘eternity.”’ 
For in his use of the quotation he shows that in his conception God 
might possibly have so addressed one of the angels who with Christ were 
pre-existent and coexistent spirit beings; Thus addressing the pre- 
existent Christ, the writer seems from one point of view to abandon 
the natural and necessary meaning of the words, especially of σήμερον 
γεγέννηκα, 50 as either to imply that the word σήμερον is equivalent 
to “eternity” or to leave the words without any point or meaning in 
their new context. From another point of view, by the reference to the 
pre-existent angels as over against the pre-existent Christ, he seems to 
imply that this pre-existent Christ rather than any one of the angels 


t Cf. Philo, De Fuga, §11 (Cohn ed., III, p. 122) σήμερον δ᾽ ἐστὶν ὁ ἀπέρατος καὶ 
ἀδιεξίτητος αἰών: μηνῶν γὰρ καὶ ἐνιαυτῶν καὶ συνόλως χρόνων περίοδοι δόγματα ἀνθρώπων 
εἰσὶν ἀριθμὸν ἐκτετιμηκότων" τὸ δ᾽ ἀψευδὲς ὄνομα αἰῶνος ἡ σήμερον. Leg. Alleg., II, 8, 
(Cohn ed., I, p. 118) ἕως τῆς σήμερον ἡμέρας, τουτέστιν del. 


2 Diognetus, 11:4, 5: Οὗτος ὁ dm’ ἀρχῆς, ὁ καινὸς φανεὶς καὶ παλαιὸς εὑρεθεὶς καὶ 


πάντοτε νέος ἐν ἁγίων καρδίαις γεννώμενος. οὗτος ὁ del, ὁ σήμερον υἱὸς λογισθείς, KTH, 
3 Heb. 1:5: “Εογίο what one of the angels did he ever say, Thou art my son?” etc. 
411 


86 HISTORICAL AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES 


\ 


was at some specific time thus addressed and by this means constituted 
or given the status and dignity of ‘“‘Son” by adoption. 

The same uncertainty or double point of view is seen in Heb. 5:5, 
where the same passage is quoted but quoted this time in reference to 
Christ’s becoming High Priest. It has been already noticed that the 
author apparently does not specify when Christ entered upon his High- 
Priestly office. But this passage (vss. 5, 6) indicates nevertheless that 
the author conceives of Christ not as having been eternally High Priest 
but as at some specific time having become or having been declared and 
constituted High Priest. And in these verses the declaration of High- 
Priesthood is put upon a par (καθὼς) with the declaration of Sonship. 
Why the two—Sonship and Priesthood—are here so closely associated 
it is hard to tell unless in some way the author conceived of the two as 
very similar in their significance and possibly identical in point of time. 
This specific time of inception, however, is not mentioned by the writer 
either for the Sonship or for the Priesthood. But at least the natural 
or face value of the language he uses in these two passages (1:5; 5:5, 6) 
makes such an interpretation natural, indeed almost necessary. 

Further reference will be made to this view that the writer, even 
though vaguely and almost inconsistently, had in mind a specific time 
at which Christ was constituted Son and High Priest. It may be well 
here to show briefly how this may be in perfect line with the developing 
thought of the primitive church, especially upon the question of Sonship. 

The simplicity of the Christology of the first few chapters of Acts 
has been recognized as indicating that these chapters in all probability 
reflect with comparative fidelity the actual thought in the primitive 
community shortly after the resurrection of Jesus.t Now the primitive 
community evidently used Ps. 2? very largely and universally in their 

1 Cf. Schmiedel, art. “Acts of the Apostles,” Enc. Bib., sec. 14: “1 is hardly 
possible not to believe that this Christology of the speeches of Peter must have come 
from a primitive source.” Cf. Harnack’s statement from a somewhat different 
point of view, The Acts of the A postles,p.190: “Οἱ course what is given us even here 
is never tradition absolutely primitive and unaffected by legend; it is rather historical 
tradition handed down by enthusiasts.” Cf. Conclusion, p. 298: “It is not only, 
taken as a whole, a genuinely historical work, but even in the majority of its details it 
is trustworthy. Except for a few panegyric aberrations in the direction of the Primi- 
tive Community, it follows no bias that distorts its representation of the actual course 
of events.” The aberrations Harnack speaks of, even if granted for these early 
chapters, do not destroy their reliability as a source for the thought of the Primitive 


Communit What can be considered as the actual facts out of the so-called miracu- 
y- 
yous or supernatural stories is of minor importance here. 


2 And the related O.T. passages, II Sam. 7:12-14; Ps. 80. 
412 


THE CHRISTOLOGY OF THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS 87 


effort to express the significance of Jesus and their conception of his 
person. Acts 2:32-36 refers the inception of the Messiahship and 
Lordship of Jesus very pointedly to the exaltation which was a result of 
the resurrection. This great enthronement as Lord and Christ would 
act in two ways upon the thought of primitive Christians. It would 
clarify and intensify whatever tremulous thoughts some of them had had 
of Jesus as Messiah before his death and resurrection and it would lead 
them in addition to carry the developing and enlarging thought of the 
later time back into the earlier period. So the baptism experience 
loomed larger as the anointing of this Jesus who was to be Messiah and 
King (Acts 4:27, and especially 10:38 which no doubt referred directly 
to the baptism). In this primitive Christology the word that plays the 
largest part as a designation of Christ is παῖς θεοῦ (3:13, 26; 4:27, 30). 
This word, which may mean “servant” or “child,” is no doubt later 
supplanted by vids, and even in Acts, though not in the earlier chapters, 
the quotation of Ps. 2:7 which has been under consideration in Heb. 
1:5; 5:5 is used and the Sonship of Christ is directly connected with 
the resurrection (Acts 13:33). This may indicate a slight advance on a 
somewhat earlier conception.’ It is true that the words (Acts 13:33) 
are in a speech made by Paul. But apart from the nature of the speeches 
in Acts?, it is clear that the Christology of the speech does not depart 
very far from the Christology of the primitive community, and yet in 
one or two respects seems to approach Paul (Acts 13:23=Rom. 1:32), 
for Paul too (Rom. 1:4) has a modified form of the thought that Christ 
was declared or constituted ‘‘Son of God” by the resurrection from the 
dead.3 Perhaps Paul’s thought was that Christ, who was eternally Son, 
was publicly and powerfully manifested to be such by the resurrection 
from the dead. If this was his thought he must be considered as having 
advanced more considerably upon the primitive conception and then 
would have approached closely to the writer of Hebrews. It may be, all 


Cf. Harnack, The Acts of the A postles, pp. 195 f. Harnack considers 12: 25—15:35 
a separate section which he calls Antiochean and considers trustworthy also. ‘We 
find in the source nothing that demands a late date of composition, while the excellent 
accounts concerning Jerusalem and Stephen, and the special veneration shown to 
Barnabas, lead us to conclude that we have here a writing of high antiquity.” 

2 Cf. Schmiedel, art. “Acts of the Apostles,” Enc. Bib., sec. 14: Headlam, art. 
“‘Acts of the Apostles,’”’ Hastings’ Bib. Dict., I, p. 33. 

3 Cf. Jiilicher, Die Schriften des Neuen Testaments, ΤΙ, 5. 221. Others to be sure 
lay the emphasis on “with power,” thus reconciling the primitive conception that 
Christ was constituted Messiah and Son by the resurrection with the thought of the 
pre-existent Christ as Son. 


413 


88 HISTORICAL AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES 


things considered, that this is the more natural and likely view to 
attribute to Paul. But his advance, however great, has not obliterated 
the mark of the primitive view, which was that Jesus was constituted 
Messiah, Lord, and Son by the resurrection and exaltation. 

The enlarging conception of Jesus as Son of God continued to press 
back the inception of Sonship. The next stage was that of the miracu- 
lous conception, in which the Semitic idea of Sonship passed over into 
the Greek metaphysical idea (Matt. 1:20; Luke 1:32). 

But even this was not sufficient. The idea of pre-existence emerged 
very early—indeed in the majority of Jewish views it was predicated of 
the Messiah. At first the thought probably was of an ideal pre-existence 
of the Messiah, just as in the case of Wisdom (Prov. 8:22 ff.) and of the 
Son of Man (Volz, op. cit., S. 215, 217 f.). But the tendency was 
increasingly strong to make this pre-existence real and active. This was 
done when the ideas of Messiah, Son of Man, and Son of God were to a 
large extent fused with the Greek concept of the Logos. The terms 
“Son of Man” and ‘‘Christ”’ tended to pass out of use, owing to Greek 
influence. The term Logos did not appeal to the early church, though 
later on the lips of the early Greek apologists (cf. Justin Martyr, passim) 
it became common as a designation for Christ. The strong religious 
consciousness of the later primitive church preferred the term Son of 
God or Son, and the inception of this Sonship was by the author of the 
Fourth Gospel, who says nothing of the virgin birth, carried back to the 
beginning (John 1:2, 18). It should still be carefully noted, however, 
that within the New Testament period there is apparently a reluctance 
to apply the word “Son” to this pre-existent being as such. So much 
so that within a number of the books of the New Testament it has been 
recognized as a difficult question whether the word “Son”’ is at all used 
of the pre-existent Christ. This is especially true of Hebrews.? 

This reluctance to apply the highest title “Son,” ‘Son of God” to 
the pre-existent Christ as such will be referred to again. It is significant 


τ Cf. Volz, Jiidische Eschatologie, S. 217. 

2 Macintosh, in Hastings’ Dictionary of the Bible (τ vol.), art. ‘‘ Person of Christ,” 
IV, sec. 3, “A very difficult question is whether in this epistle ‘Son’ is applied to the 
preincarnate One or to the incarnate Christ only..... No one can doubt that the 
writer’s mind starts from Christ the Son as known in history and in his exaltation, and 
holds these revealing facts steadily in the foreground of his thought; but does he go 
farther back, and carry this Sonship into the pre-existent state ?”; cf. A. B. Davidson, 
Hebrews, note on the ‘“‘Son,” pp. 73 ff. Also Bruce, Epistle to the Hebrews, pp. 440 f., 
‘““The same interest, that of magnifying the sacrifice, requires the Sonship to be of 
older date than the life on earth.” 


414 


THE CHRISTOLOGY OF THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS 89 


here as indicating that when the Christians began to identify Christ 
with the Logos, thus making him, even if somewhat vaguely, eternal, 
the words of Ps. 2:7, especially σήμερον γεγέννηκά oe, tended to lose 
their specific reference to any definite inception of Sonship. Their 
adoptive significance was lost, the famous christological watchword of 
the primitive community only caused confusion, till finally the word 
σήμερον was interpreted as denoting the timeless “‘today” of God in 
somewhat the same way as a day of God was said to be a thousand years. 

The period of confusion is exhibited in the author of Hebrews 
(1:5; 5:5). Foritis clear now, though it was not so clear to the author, 
that the words are hardly fitting to his thought of Christ. For the 
epistle plainly predicates a real and an active pre-existence of Christ, 
even if the author hesitates to apply the word “Son”’ to him as pre- 
existent (10:5). But he fails to give any point of time to which the 
words of Ps. 2:7 could apply, though the words in their proper meaning 
require such a time. 

That later writers felt the irrelevancy of these words as used of the 
Logos or the eternal Christ, and sought to clear up the confusion caused 
by them, is shown by the way in which they sometimes explained them. 
Clement of Rome? uses this quotation (Ps. 2:7), but in him the words 
have lost their specific reference more than in the Epistle to the Hebrews. 
Clement says, “But of his Son the Master said thus: ‘Thou art my Son, 
I this day have begotten thee. Ask of me,’’’ etc. He speaks of the one 
to whom these words are said as already “Son,” and does not pause 
to explain. 

A more suggestive use is found in Justin Martyr.? In this passage 
the fundamental thing to be noticed is not the precise meaning of Justin, 
about which there may be some doubt.3 It is rather the fact that he 


τ Clement, J Ep. ad Cor., chap. 36. 


2 Dialog. C. 88, p. 316 C, D: τὸ πνεῦμα οὖν τὸ ἅγιον Kal διὰ τοὺς ἀνθρώπους, ὡς 
προέφην, ἐν εἴδει περιστερᾶς ἐπέπτη αὐτῷ, καὶ φωνὴ ἐκ τῶν οὐρανῶν ἅμα ἐληλύθει 
ἥτις καὶ διὰ Δαυΐδ λεγομένη, ὡς ἀπὸ προσώπου αὐτοῦ λέγοντος ὅπερ αὐτῷ ἀπὸ τοῦ 
πατρὸς ἔμελλε λέγεσθαι Ὑἱός μου εἶ σύ, ἔγὼ σήμερον γεγέννηκά σε’ τότε γένεσιν αὐτοῦ 
λέγων γίνεσθαι τοῖς ἀνθρώποις, ἐξ ὅτου ἡ γνῶσις αὐτοῦ ἔμελλε γίνεσθαι. Cf. Explanation 
of Methodius: τὸ δὲ ᾿Εγὼ σήμερον γεγέννηκά σε, ὅτι προόντα ἤδη mpd τῶν αἰώνων ἐν 
τοῖς οὐρανοῖς ἐβουλήθην καὶ τῷ κόσμῳ γεννῆσαι, ὃ δή ἐστι, προσθὲν ἀγνοχούμενον 
γνωρίσαι. Cf. also other quotations and explanations as given by Otto in his edition 
of Justin Martyr, Dialogue, chap. 88. 


3 The sentence is loosely formed. The participle λέγων is anacoluthic; gram- 
matically it ought to agree with πνεῦμα or φωνὴ but the real meaning predominates 
and the form λέγων is used with the feeling that “God” is the subject, i.e., as if 


415 


90 HISTORICAL AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES 


feels the irrelevancy of this quotation and is forced into an explanation 
of it which refers the σήμερον to some specific time in the future, viz., 
the time of the γνῶσις or revelation of Christ, whether this γνῶσις be 
interpreted historically of Jesus’ coming into the world' or mystically, 
that is, spiritually. That Justin should be forced to make this explana- 
tion shows how the original meaning and face value of the words per- 
sisted. For Justin does not hesitate to call Christ “God.’? And, 
indeed, it is not at all likely that the γένεσις of Christ of which 
Justin speaks in explaining σήμερον γεγέννηκα is considered by him as 
constituting Christ ‘“‘Son.” Justin would consider and call Christ 
eternally Logos and Son. The face value of the words σήμερον γεγέννηκα 
is satisfied by an explanation of the γένεσις at a specific time as the 
revelation of this hitherto hidden Son. But this shows that even in 
Justin Martyr the atmosphere of the historical Jesus still clings to the 
title “Son.” 

In the same line of development, there is found a puzzling passage 
in the Apostolic Fathers (Zp. to Diognetus, chap. 11).3 There can be 
little doubt that Lightfoot is right‘ in translating “‘He, I say, who is 
eternal, who today was accounted a son,” as against the translation of 
the Ante-Nicene Fathers,5 “‘This is He who, being from everlasting, is 
today called the Son.’ That is, the word σήμερον does not have the 
meaning ‘‘at the present time,” but is almost certainly a reminiscence of 
the common quotation of Ps. 2:7. But this does not necessarily annul 
the suggestiveness of the passage as a parallel to that of Justin. In fact 
ὅπερ αὐτῷ ἀπὸ τοῦ πατρὸς ἔμελλε λέγεσθαι were active. The participle λέγοντος 
would more naturally be taken as agreeing with αὐτοῦ (Christ), and may indeed be 
so taken. But the sense is better if λέγοντος is referred back to Δαυΐδ. ἔμελλε in 
both cases denotes a future-to-a-past point of view. τότε is emphatic and proleptic 
pointing forward to ἐξ ὅτου which may mean either “from which [time]” or “at 
which [time].” In its first occurrence γίνεσθαι stands for a general present. One would 
expect γενήσεσθαι but the writer allows his own point of time, viz., the time of 
writing, to intrude when he should not. He returns to the future-to-a-past point 
of view in ἔμελλε γίνεσθαι. 

τ Justin may have the miraculous conception in mind much as in the previous part 
of the sentence he speaks of Jesus as being accounted the son of Joseph, the carpenter: 
καὶ νομιζομένου ᾿Ιωσὴφ τοῦ τέκτονος υἱοῦ ὑπάρχειν. 

2Cf. De Resurrectione,10. If this reading ὁ θεός is refused (cf. Otto, De Resur., 
p- το, n. 16), still it is plain that Justin though never actually identifying Christ with 
God gives to him an exceedingly high réle and calls him “‘God” (Dial. 57). 

300Tos ὁ am’ ἀρχῆς, ὁ καινὸς φανείς, καὶ παλαιὸς εὑρεθείς, Kal πάντοτε νέος ἐν 
ἁγίων καρδίαις γεννώμενος. Οὗτος ὁ ἀεί, [ὁ] σήμερον υἱὸς λογισθείς, 

4 Lightfoot, Apostolic Fathers, p. 510. 5 Vol. I, p. 29. 

416 


THE CHRISTOLOGY OF THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS 91 


the whole context bears a striking resemblance to that of the passage in 
Justin, and probably the writer to Diognetus would have given an 
interpretation to σήμερον similar to that which Justin gives. Like the 
passage in Justin, it emphasizes the contrast which was felt between the 
eternity of the being who is called “Son” and a word? which by its 
proper meaning contradicted that eternity. 

What truth there may be in any or all of these varying views of the 
inception of Christ’s Sonship, viz., resurrection and exaltation, baptism, 
miraculous conception, Logos-doctrine, it is not in place to discuss here. 
This explanation of their relation and development may not, indeed, be 
the right one. But it accounts well for the presence of the quotation of 
Ps. 2:7 in Heb. 1:5; 5:5, and also for the fact quite noticeable in the 
whole of the New Testament, and especially in the earlier parts, that 
there is a reluctance to apply the title “Son” to the Christ as pre- 
existent. ΐ 

This view is strengthened by the fact that while the writer of Hebrews 
conceives the Son as a being whose life extends probably into the eternal 
past, yet in none of the other passages in which the title ““Son”’ is used 
does he employ it in a clear and unambiguous way of the pre-existent one. 
It might be answered that for one who is beforehand determined that the 
title “Son” could only apply to the earthly Christ, either in the days of 
his flesh or as exalted, it would be impossible for any writer so to use the 
title as to compel reference to him as pre-existent. But in sucha passage 
as 10:5-9, which clearly implies pre-existence,? and may appropriately 
be compared to Phil. 2:5 ff., the author might have used the title ‘‘Son”’ 
so as to refer clearly to the pre-existent one. 

It is difficult to determine the precise content of the word “Son” in 
the conception of the writer. In fact there are not sufficient data to do 
so. In1:8 it is evident from what follows that the conception of “Son” 
is.a high one, even though the first part of vs. 8 were to be translated 
according to Westcott and Hort, ‘‘Thy throne is God forever and ever 
and the sceptre of uprightness is the sceptre of His Kingdom.” But 
even here the adoptive idea thrusts itself to the front in 1:9. 

It is impossible here to go into the probable date of chaps. 11 and 12 of Ep. to 
Diognetus. It is generally recognized that there is a break between chaps. 10 and 11 
and that the epistle proper ends with chap. 10. Also that chaps. 11 and 12 are prob- 
ably a homily; cf. Harnack, Geschichte der altchristlichen Litteratur bis Eusebius, S. 


757: “ἘΒ ist das Fragment einer Homilie und gehdért vielleicht in den Kreis des 
Methodius.” Methodius died cir. 311 A.D. 


2 The participle ἐρχόμενος being present implies that what is said vss. 5-7 is said 
coincidently with coming into the world. 
417 


92 HISTORICAL AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES 


In 3:6 Christ is contrasted with Moses. While both were faithful, 
Moses was faithful only as a servant as being im and therefore also a part 
of God’s house. But Christ was faithful as a Son over God’s house. 
The thought here is closely connected with that of Christ as a “first- 
born”’ Son (1:6). In God’s house Christ holds the high and honored 
position and power which was universally assigned to such a one in 
ancient and especially oriental states. But in this passage again it is 
interesting as well as perplexing to note that while the writer probably 
made no conscious distinction between believers of the old dispensation 
and those of the new as constituting God’s house, yet those over whom 
Christ is placed as ‘“‘Son”’ are the Christians, not the Old Testament 
saints. It is another indication that almost unconsciously the title 
“Son” carries to the writer the atmosphere of the earthly and exalted 
Jesus. It does not refer so fittingly to the pre-existent Christ. In 
this passage the word “Son” lacks the article, is qualitative, and 
denotes such a one as bears the same relation to God and his house 
(Christians) as the firstborn bears to the father of a household. There 
is nothing to indicate how he was constituted Son or in what this 
Sonship consists. 

In 5:8 the title occurs again without the article, being qualitatively 
used. It is found in the midst of a passage which, as already noted, 
emphasizes thoroughly the humanity of Christ. The thought of the 
immediate context is similar to that of 12:5 f., which emphasizes the 
Father’s love and care in chastening true sons. But the contrast is 
clearly and strongly marked in that while in 12:5 f. the chastening and 
consequent training is natural and to be expected of every son (cf. 12:6), 
in 5:8 the author designates the chastening and sufferings of Christ as 
altogether exceptional and exceptional just because he was a “Son.” 
This marks the Sonship of Christ as in the author’s conception unique. 
It also clearly predicates Sonship of Jesus before his resurrection and 
exaltation. Does it use the title of him as pre-existent ? Possibly so; 
but even if so, the experiences which he relates have to do entirely with 
the historical Jesus. 

In Heb. 7:28 again the title is qualitative: “one who is a son per- 
fected forever.”” This passage also tends to separate Jesus from men, 
even from Christians, but this separation is closely connected with the 
fact that he is High Priest. As such he is ‘“‘holy, harmless, undefiled, 
separate from sinners and made higher than the heavens.” This de- 
scription of the Son is not one that refers to moral character only. It 


τ Cf. Heb. 3:60, “‘whose house are we, if we hold fast,” etc. 
418 


THE CHRISTOLOGY OF THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS 93 


is in a large measure official perfection, perfection that consists in proper 
relations and proper surroundings. It is, however, contrary to the 
emphasis of the writer upon the weakness (5: 20, 7 f.) and true humanity 
to say that there is “πὸ contrast between the state of the Son before 
perfection and when perfected.”’ That would empty his words of any 
meaning. It is probably true that in the author’s conception the con- 
trast does not imply any positive moral sinfulness in the Son before 
perfection. The state of perfection here is in evident contrast with the 
state of weakness (7:28a@). The state of perfection as contrasted with 
the state of weakness in the days of his flesh has an added increment of 
positive moral strength, of power, and of efficiency. This is a condition 
of character and saving power unattained by any Levitical high priest, 
altogether unattained by anyone. Does the word “Son”’ here apply to 
Christ as pre-existent ? It would surely seem so, for it is the word of 
the oath which was after the law, viz., Ps. 110:4, which declares a Son 
High Priest after the order of Melchizedek. Sonship and Priesthood 
are closely associated in 5:5. The writer may well have conceived the 
pre-existent Christ as declared by God High Priest proleptically. In 
this passage he seems to separate between the Sonship and High-Priest- 
hood. But as the inception of Sonship is left indefinite by the writer, 
so the inception of Priesthood is left indefinite. The Son seems to be 
spoken of as pre-existent, but he is described in words which denote 
a perfection gained by earthly experiences. 

In four other passages? the full title ““Son of God” is used of Jesus. 
In the first (4:14, ‘Jesus the Son of God’’), by being coupled with the 
name “Jesus,” the title is again redolent of the life and experiences 
of the man Jesus. The context is also similar to that of 7:28, since 
Jesus, the Son of God, is the great High Priest who by his experiences is 
full of sympathy for human sins and weakness. By this too the title 
**Son of God”’ is here surrounded with an atmosphere of earth. 

In 6:6 and 10:29, passages which are quite similar, the supreme 
and awful dignity and worth of the person designated is brought 
out by the title “Son of God.” The solemn weight which the 
title can and does here carry is brought out by the fact that to 
trample under foot the Son of God, to count the blood of the 
covenant an unholy thing (10:29), to crucify the Son of God afresh 
(6:6), and to put him to an open shame is the unforgivable sin, the final 
tragedy. It is not necessary to show here what is the source of this 

tA. B. Davidson, Hebrews, p. 145. 

seb 4: τὰ; 6:6; 7:3; 10:20: 

419 


94 HISTORICAL AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES 


terribly somber strain in Hebrews." It is clear that the supreme dignity 
and work of the one who is called the Son of God is the very thing that 
makes such a sin possible. And yet even in these tragic circumstances 
the things which constitute the crime, viz., counting the blood of the 
Covenant an unholy thing, crucifying the Son of God afresh, etc., 
involve references only to the experiences of the earthly Jesus. 

The third use of the full title “Son of God” occurs in the chapter 
which deals with Melchizedek as the type of Christ (7:3, ‘‘ Being made 
like the Son of God,” etc.). This bit of characteristic Alexandrian 
allegorical exegesis deserves more detailed and intensive study than has 
yet been given to it. For the writer as for Philo there is an aureole 
around the weird figure of Melchizedek. The oracle of Ps. 110:4 is the 
chief cornerstone of the writer’s whole presentation of Jesus. Generally 
the figure of Melchizedek is viewed as the type of Christ and the writer 
views his thesis, of the intricacy of which he is himself fully aware (5:11), 
as doubly proved since as a matter of fact one did actually appear in 
history who answered all the requirements of this oracle (7:15 f.). Jesus 
is a Priest after the order of Melchizedek and not after the order of 
Aaron (7:11). And this means particularly two things, viz., a new and 
better covenant (7:12), and an unchangeable because eternal and perfect 
priesthood (7:16 f.). But the likeness to the type Melchizedek consists 
chiefly in the fact that Christ’s Priesthood is forever, eternal (7:16); 
it does not pass to another (7:24) because he who exercises it possesses 
a life of such essential and moral quality as to be indestructible (7:16). 

It is to be noted, however, that in this phrase, “‘made like unto the 
Son of God”’ (7:3), the title is used in a way directly contrary to the 
usage of the passage in Ps. 110:4 on which it is supposed to be based, 
contrary also to the application which the writer himself makes in the 
rest of this passage. This has caused interpreters a great deal of trouble 
and it has been explained in various ways.? 

The simplest and probably the best explanation is to be found by 
considering that the same process of thought occurs here in connection 
with the writer’s use of the passage in Ps. 110:4 as occurred in con- 
nection with his use of the passage in Ps. 2:7, as above described. In 


*Perdelwitz (Zeitschrift fiir neutestamentliche Wissenschaft, Heft 2, 1910; Das 
literarische Problem des Hebrier-Briefs, 11, S. 105) argues for the origin of Hebrews in 
the circle of presbyters in Asia Minor, on the basis of similarity to a newly discovered 
conclusion of Mark and to I John on the question of the forgiveness of sins. 


2 Cf. Bengel, ‘‘non dicitur filius Dei assimilatus Melchisedeco, sed contra; nam 
filius Dei est antiquior et archetypus”’; cf. 8:5; Bleek, II, S. 315 and I, S. 360. 


420 


THE CHRISTOLOGY OF THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS 95 


both cases the writer’s identification of Christ with the Logos, his view 
that Christ is pre-existent and perhaps eternal, causes him to use language 
of Jesus as the Son of God and as High Priest which is really at variance 
with the original and with any natural meaning of the Old Testament 
passages and inconsistent with the writer’s own understanding of those 
passages. It must be admitted that here if anywhere the writer uses the 
title Son of God of Christ as pre-existent. But in doing so he has 
directly reversed the thought of his original passage (Ps. 110:4). Hehas 
not only gone beyond it; he has contradicted it or at least has revealed 
that it is inadequate and inappropriate to express the thought that is 
in his own mind. It is another support to the thesis that the author is 
carrying back contributions from actual history and his own experience 
into the Old Testament Scriptures rather than carrying forward only 
what is found in the Old Testament Scriptures. 

The title “the Son of God”’ as it is found here (7:3) does not indicate 
anything additional as to content. Nor does it throw any light on the 
question as to how the writer considers Jesus to be or to have become the 
Son of God. It is even possible, though hardly natural, to hold that it is 
not used of Christ as pre-existent but in a free and somewhat loose way, 
by a sort of hysteron-proteron, denotes the earthly Jesus. 

There is but one case left of the use of “Son,” viz., 1:2. It lacks the 
article and is therefore used qualitatively, meaning “‘one who is a son,” 
i.e., “who bears the relation of a Son to God.”’ The context here as in 
most of the other cases shows that the word denotes one supreme and 
unique in dignity, worth, and power.’ It is possible that the phrases of 
1:34 carry a somewhat indefinite ontological meaning, but they cannot 
be pressed, and the view here taken is that they are conceived by the 
author metaphorically rather than metaphysically. By this it is meant 
that the author is not endeavoring to express by them the nature or 
process of Sonship. 

It is quite possible, indeed probable, that here again the writer is 
using the word ‘“‘Son” as denoting not merely the earthly but also the 
pre-existent Christ. This is the more likely since in the immediate con- 
text he speaks of him as creator and sustainer of the worlds. But as noted 
already, the writer’s thought moves not back to further pre-existent pro- 
cesses or activities, but immediately forward to the High-Priestly work 
of salvation, the exaltation and the superior dignity of the Son. 

Further, even here in this succinct, artistic, and lofty epitome and 
introduction, the thought of the writer transcends the limits of his 


τ Cf. use of “Son” in the parable of the Husbandman (Mark 12: 1-12). 
421 


96 HISTORICAL AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES 


language. It is not only that in his supreme function as revealer the 
Son is placed with the prophets, so that here too the atmosphere which 
surrounds the word ‘“‘Son”’ is that of the earthly life of Jesus. But 
the phrase ‘““whom he appointed heir of all things” (1:25) points to 
a specific time. If the word ἔθηκεν is taken to mean “placed,” 
“festablished,” and the word κληρονόμος made to denote a realization 
still future to the €@yxev,' this time may well be taken to be the 
exaltation. But whether taken in this way or in some other way the 
phrase seems somewhat incongruous with eternal sonship. The word 
carries with it something of the adoptive idea. 

c) Summary.—To sum up the content of the title “Son” or “Son of 
God”: The writer’s free and unexplained use of the word shows that he 
had taken it over from the early Christian usage. He feels no need of 
defining it in any precise way but uses the term as one quite familiar. 
The ethical and religious use of the term is easily distinguished, the 
atmosphere of the earthly life of Jesus surrounds it continually. Never- 
theless it is clear that in the writer’s conception the term has passed 
beyond its Hebraic meaning and has taken on somewhat of the Greek 
meaning. For the writer clearly applies the term “Son” to one whom 
he considers pre-existent in a real sense. In a few cases probably he 
uses the title “Son” of this pre-existent being as such, but he does not 
reveal in what precise way he considers him to be the Son of God. He 
probably considers him as eternal, but he does not dwell upon or attempt 
to give a rationale of his past eternity. Yet by the language used he 
reveals that he had taken up terms which originally denoted an adoptive 
conception of the Sonship which in all probability was the conception 
first developed and held by the Christian church. The writer’s own 
thought, however, has passed beyond this. He holds the Son to be a 
being altogether unique in his mission and work, in the dignity and 
worth of his person, and in his eternal relation to God as Father. 


1 Davidson, Hebrews, p. 40. 


422 


III. RESUME: THE TOTAL CHRIST PERSONALITY 


It is clear that the writer holds that there were three well-marked 
periods in the career of this person whom he calls Jesus, the Son, the 
Christ, the Lord, or Jesus Christ. These periods are, first, the period of 
pre-existence, secondly the period of the earthly life, “the days of his 
flesh,’”’ and thirdly the period of the exaltation. It is one and the same 
person whose career embraces these three periods. This person is 
represented as speaking in the first period with a consciousness of what 
would happen in the second (10:5; 2:12), and as acting in the second 
period with a consciousness of what would happen in the third period 
(12:2). The oneness of this personality is assumed in the introductory 
words of the epistle (1:2-4) as well as in other portions of it (7:16; 
2:9; 2:12). Im fact, it is an assumption that pervades the epistle in 
such a way that the writer feels no need of specific reference to it. 

The duality in the personality of Jesus expressed in this thesis by the 
phrases “human elements” and “transcendent elements’ might be 
considered with advantage from the standpoint of the three periods 
above named. The human element is manifested particularly in the 
earthly period denoted by the writer as the “days of his flesh,’’ the 
second period. This is the period of temporary humiliation (2:9 f.) 
between the former period of glory and the succeeding period of still 
greater glory. But it is in this period of humiliation that he lives his 
life and does his work as a man in such a way that he earns the exaltation 
and the greater glory of the third period. 

There is little reference to the historical Jesus because the writer is 
interested in the sacrificial death and the High-Priestly work. His life 
as a man is viewed as the essential preliminary, first for the sacrificial 
death, and secondly for the sympathetic discharge of his High-Priestly 
function in salvation (2:14, 17; 10:5f.). In the case of Jesus, both the 
becoming man and the death are voluntary, not involuntary as in the 
case of other men. It is not in the life of Jesus as such that the writer 
is interested. 

But it does not follow that the writer presents the life of Jesus as a 
mere semblance of human life, a make-believe. There is no tinge of 
Docetism in the epistle. This perhaps results from the fact that the writer 
may have viewed all human lives as incarnations of pre-existent spirits 
423] 97 


98 HISTORICAL AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES 


(12:9, 238; 10:56). In any case, in describing the earthly period of the 
career of Jesus the writer shows an insight probably surpassing that of 
any other New Testament writer into the development of character’ 
under stress and suffering. And further, there is no intrusion of the 
miraculous in the presentation of the writer, such for instance as is 
found running parallel with the teaching in the Fourth Gospel. The 
writer may have accepted much of this miraculous element in connection 
with the historical life of Jesus, but he does not use it in his presentation. 
The use of historical material by the writer is decidedly limited, but in 
so far as he does use it he makes it abundantly clear that in his con- 
ception the life of Jesus was a genuinely human life. It was lived under 
conditions and limitations that hampered other lives. Its characteristic 
was not that it was a life free from these limitations but that it over- 
came them. 

The “‘transcendent element’’ in the life of Jesus is manifested rather 
in the first and third periods than in the second. The third period 
begins with the exaltation preceded by that which corresponds to the 
ascension (4:14; 6:20). In the case of Jesus these are transcendent 
elements, though the writer has the conception of the ascension or 
translation of Enoch (11:5). Repeatedly it is stated that Jesus is 
exalted at the right hand of God (1:3; 8:1; 10:12; 12:2). This exalta- 
tion is conceived of as a reward for work accomplished (5:81; 8:6) and 
as befitting the nature and inner worth of Jesus (12:2 f.). It is couched 
in the most august and solemn language, denoting emphatically an 
epoch in the career of Jesus. 

The language in which the exaltation is expressed implies that Jesus 
is to rest and enjoy the fruit of his labors for the salvation of men. He 
has finished his labors and has entered upon the state of personal and 
official perfection (2:10; 5:8). He has entered into the sabbatismos for 
the people of God (4:9). And the notion of rest is extended to denote 
that Jesus is to wait expectant until God shall have subdued all his 
enemies beneath his feet (1:13; 10:13). Who or what these enemies 
were the writer does not say, unless he includes among them death and 
the devil (2:14). He may be assumed to include further all the forces 


t There is no direct evidence of this, but there are some hints that point toward 
such a view. It would not be out of accord with his Platonic tendency and would 
explain the peculiar way in which he speaks of the incarnation of Jesus. This is the 
view of the writer of the Wisdom of Solomon with which Hebrews has some affinity 
(Wisd. 8:19, 20; 7:1 f.). 


2 Cf. Wisd. 2:23, 24. 
424 


THE CHRISTOLOGY OF THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS 99 


among men and in the universe that make for wickedness and thwart 
the realization of the perfect messianic kingdom. But the Son himself 
is not active in the subduing of these enemies. God is to make them 
the footstool of his feet (1:13b). This emphasizes the subordination of 
Jesus to God, even in the period of the exaltation of Jesus. In Paul 
Jesus is represented as in charge of the government of the world and of 
the kingdom, which government he finally surrenders to God. In 
Hebrews God never surrenders his unique and supreme place. 

It is rather difficult to interpret the idea of rest involved in the writer’s 
language expressing the exaltation. But it must not be so interpreted 
as to make the exalted Christ inactive. It is probable that the writer 
conceives the cosmic activity of the pre-existent period (1:2, 3) to be 
continuous throughout the time subsequent to exaltation. But his 
thought is not directed primarily to the cosmic relations or activities of 
Christ. The emphasis of the writer is soteriological. Christ is active 
in the time subsequent to exaltation, but it is an activity that is related 
to salvation and has as its object and goal the realization of perfect 
salvation in the messianic kingdom (9:28). This will be inaugurated at 
the second coming. In the meantime Christ is active as High Priest in 
the heavenly tabernacle in the very presence of God (5:9; 6:20; 7:24, 
25). The modern mind finds it hard to conceive of this heavenly activity 
in any definite way. The writer of Hebrews, in true Platonic fashion, 
considered the heavenly the real (9:23, 24). He conceived the unseen 
activity of Christ in the heavenly tabernacle as exerting a real influence 
on God and on men. It saved men, purifying and sanctifying them 
(5:9; 9:14; 10:19 f.), and it restrained the righteous wrath of God 
(12:20). 

All this High-Priestly activity is transcendent. It belongs to a being 
that is transcendent, that is more than man, for it is directed to the 
saving of men. Christ is a mediator between God and men since he is 
the mediator (12:24) and surety of the new covenant (7:22). No high 
priest of the old covenant, indeed no human being as such, could perform 
this office of savior (2:16, 17). It was performed in a transcendent 
sphere and required a transcendent being. 

In regard to the activity and position of Christ in the second stage 
of the exaltation period, the perfected messianic age, the writer is still 
more reticent. The voice of God that once shook the earth only will 
again shake both earth and heaven so that the things that are made 
shall be shaken and pass away and only the unseen realities shall remain 
(1:10-12; 12:26 f.). He identifies Christianity with this kingdom of 

425 


100 HISTORICAL AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES 


abiding reality that cannot be changed. This is probably a Chris- 
tianized form of the Platonic and Philonic contrast of the intelligible 
and the tangible worlds, the κόσμος νοητός and the κόσμος αἰσθητός. 
Angels in one place (1:70) are spoken of as if they might be among those 
beings that would pass away. In another place (12:22b) they are 
associated with the kingdom of abiding reality. As to what would 
happen ultimately to men in general and to spirit-beings at this great 
metathesis the writer apparently did not think definitely; or if he did, 
he did not express himself in this epistle. He declares unequivocally 
that Christ is eternal and does not pass away with the worlds which he 
has made (1:12). And he probably holds to the immortality through 
Christ of Christians, but his thought does not pursue this topic. The 
writer does not complete his picture of the perfected messianic kingdom 
with material gathered from apocalyptical sources, as the writer of 
Revelation does. He prefers to leave details of the eternal kingdom to 
reverent imagination. He is content to emphasize the abiding reality, 
the eternity of Christ and his kingdom. 

The language which expresses the exaltation of Jesus denotes further 
the unique place which Jesus holds in the world of beings in relation to 
God. There is only one place in all the universe that can be described 
as at the right hand of the Majesty on high, and Jesus holds that place. 
He is the eternal vicegerent of God. It is the place of supremacy, 
the place of power. It is not God’s place, yet it is the unique place of 
power and honor next to God. 

But what may be called a higher degree of transcendency in the 
writer’s conception of Jesus is manifested in what the writer says of him 
in the first period. This is expressed most fully in the words of the 
introduction (1:2, 3). Christ is the agent of creation and the support 
of the worlds which under God he has created. This conception of the 
cosmic significance of Christ is not found in the Christology of the 
primitive church, but is quite characteristic of the later New Testament 
view. In Hebrews at least it is a corollary of the writer’s Platonic and 
Philonic doctrine. God is too august, too pure and holy to have direct, 
unmediated contact with the world of tangible things. He is con- 
cerned rather with the intelligible world of eternal realities (9:23, 24; 
12:22, 27). To be sure, the author does not hold this philosophic 
idea in the outspoken, unrelieved form in which Philo holds it. It is 
considerably modified by the writer’s emphasis on the Christian ele- 
ment, so that the philosophic idea lies latent. But there can hardly 
be any doubt that for Christians in general, and for the writer of 

426 


THE CHRISTOLOGY OF THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS 101 


Hebrews in particular, the way to the thought of Christ as the agent of 
creation was paved by the philosophic idea that God was too holy and 
transcendent to be brought into direct contact with the material world. 
At the time of the writing of Hebrews this idea in a more or less definite 
form was the common property of the literature of the nations. But it 
was particularly prominent in Philo. Met by the Christian faith in the 
Messiahship of Jesus and the Christian consciousness of his religious 
supremacy and uniqueness, it produced in modified and more sober 
form the common Christian tenet that Christ was the agent and support 
of creation. 

This however hardly carries the transcendent element in the con- 
ception of Christ beyond that which is implied in his being seated at the 
right hand of God at his exaltation. Both imply only a secondary 
divinity. Christ is in a sense on a par with angels as being with them a 
spirit-being (1:4, 9b). He has become better than they by that which 
he has experienced and accomplished on earth (1:3, 4), so that after his 
exaltation, when he comes again into the world, the angels, who formerly 
were in a sense his companions (1:9), must worship him (1:6). 

The striking words of 1:3a@ decidedly enhance the transcendent 
element. They may indicate, probably do indicate, that the writer 
with more or less philosophical feeling and thought transferred these 
words from the Logos and Wisdom to Christ.t One must beware of 
making logical and metaphysical inferences from these terms.? For, in 
addition to a measure of uncertainty as to their precise meaning, they 
are at bottom metaphorical. They are terms that strike the imagina- 
tion. The writer was reaching after the highest terms within his 
knowledge to express the supreme significance of Christ and his unique 
relation to God without actually identifying him with God. These 
terms enhance the transcendent element in the person of Christ but 
cannot with certainty be considered to carry it into the realm of the 
essentially divine. They say nothing about the essential nature of 
Christ. 

The titles, with the possible exception of 6 vids and ὃ πρωτότοκος 
say nothing about the essential nature of Christ. The title 6 πρωτότο. 
kos is practically equal to 6 vids, denoting a unique relation to God 
implying pre-existence and priority in pre-existence. It need not of 
itself denote essential relationship to God, but may denote an ethical 
relationship of honor, responsibility, love, and devotion, such as a 

t Philo, De opif. mundi, sec. 51, p. 33D; Wisd. 7:26. 

2E. Ménégoz, La théologie de l’epitre aux Hébreux, p. 78. 

427 


102 HISTORICAL AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES 


firstborn holds in the house of his father. It is more likely however that, 
like the terms in 1:3a, it denotes some sort of actual, that is, essential 
relation to God, a relation which is not explicitly defined but which falls 
short of identity. 

The title “Son” is more frequent and more august, but it is a question 
whether it carries anything stronger or more definite in essential relation- 
ship than “firstborn.”’ The title Son is used of Jesus both in the earthly 
period and in the period of exaltation. It is not certainly used of him 
in the pre-existent period, though the writer might very easily have so 
used it as, for instance, if he had said in 10:5, ‘“‘ Wherefore when [the 
Son] cometh into the world, he saith,” etc. There are various other 
ways by which the author, if he had so desired, might have made it 
unambiguous that he considered Christ as Son of God in the pre-existent 
state, that is as eternally Son. And it is not possible to deny on the 
basis of the epistle that the writer did so consider Christ as eternally the 
Son of God. It is altogether probable that he did. He uses the term 
as one familiar to himself and his readers, and so familiar that it needed 
no explanation. If he conceived the relationship of Son as eternal, he 
still furnishes no means whatsoever of apprehending the modus operandi 
of that relationship. His thought was not turned in that direction. 

But the adoptive meaning of the language used in regard to Sonship, 
the fact that in no instance does he unambiguously use the term Son of 
Christ as pre-existent, the fact that he seems to guard the subordination 
of Christ to God even when he speaks of Christ in the highest terms— 
all these as well as other indications go to show that the writer probably 
marked a transition from an earlier christological view which his adoptive 
language fitted to a later and more advanced view for the expression of 
which there was no fitting terminology. He therefore used his 
Alexandrian terminology notably in 1:3@, and this terminology soon 
became used to express a view still further advanced than that of the 
writer. But this terminology even as meant by the writer expressed an 
advanced view inconsistent with the view expressed by the adoptive 
terminology. Probably the writer understood the Sonship as eternal, 
probably as in some sense essential. But the writer did not advance to 
the idea of an essential divinity of the Son in the sense of identity with 
God. That was left for his successors. He approached so closely 
however to the more advanced view that he has generally been credited 
with holding it. As Ménégoz says, it is “une illusion d’optique.’” 


1 Ménégoz, op. cit., p. τοι. 


428 


THE CHRISTOLOGY OF THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS 103 


SUMMARY 


To sum up in brief the writer’s view of the person of Jesus: The 
writer holds that this being whose earthly name was Jesus was a supreme 
spirit-being who had lived and worked before his appearance in time. 
During this pre-existent period this being was comparable to the angels, 
but at the same time stood in a unique relation to God" as compared 
with other spirit-beings including angels (1:3a, 6). He performed 
works which no other spirit-beings performed, both in relation to the 
world (1:26, το) and to men (5:9). By an ex post facto method of 
thought he is implicitly credited with a special relationship to men even 
in the pre-existent period (2:11). This undefined relationship to men 
issues in his becoming man, taking bodily form that in accordance with 
the will of God he might become an efficient Savior and a sympathetic 
High Priest on men’s behalf. This earthly period was a period of 
comparative humiliation, a period during which he was inferior to the 
angels to whom before he had been in a measure superior. But this 
time of temporary humiliation and suffering issues in sinless perfection, 
both personal and official, and finally, after the voluntary sacrificial 
death which secures forgiveness, brings communion with God, and 
perfect salvation, in exaltation. Because he has accomplished through 
suffering this great end of perfect salvation for men, he is raised to greater 
than his former glory. He is exalted at the right hand of God, the 
supreme place of honor and power. Here in the heavenly tabernacle he 
exercises his office as Savior and High Priest, until finally he shall come 
again to usher in the messianic age of perfect salvation. But all these 
activities are carried on in subordination to God ‘‘for whom are all things 
and through whom are all things.’’ God js supreme over all. 

In commenting on the blending or balance of the human and tran- 
scendent elements in the picture of the Christ, it may be said again that 
the human elements are genuine. It is true that the writer uses only 
those elements which bear upon the great purpose that he assigns to 
Christ, the salvation of men. But within these bounds the writer 
presents a sober picture of human development such that one instinc- 
tively feels that it is not artificial but genuine. 

And in spite of much to the contrary, much that renders plausible 
the thought that the supernatural in the crude sense, the bizarre, is the 
emphatic thing with the author—in spite of this it is true that the 
taproot of his presentation is the life and death of the human person 


t Heb. 1:3a, 6. Jesus was ‘“‘firstborn” in relation to angels as the angels were in 


relation to men (12:23). 
429 


104 HISTORICAL AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES 


Jesus interpreted primarily through his own experience of salvation and 
his knowledge of the similar experiences of his fellows.t But this 
knowledge and experience of the benefits that flowed directly or 
indirectly from Jesus justified the author, in his own mind at least, in 
accepting the interpretation of his fellow-Christians that this Jesus was 
the Messiah, that he was risen from the dead, that he was divine and 
pre-existent, and that he would come again. This experience of the 
benefits springing from faith in Jesus justified him also in adding many 
peculiar elements from his own Alexandrian training. Such may have 
been the doctrine that Jesus was the Logos, that he was the agent of 
God in creation and revelation, that he was the mediator of a new 
covenant, that he was High Priest after the order of Melchizedek, that 
he ministered in the real tabernacle in heaven, etc. These inferences 
may not all be acceptable to the modern mind. They belong, many 
of them at least, to a particular philosophy and world-view that is past. 
They give a kaleidoscopic picture of Jesus that could hardly be free from 
inconsistencies and incongruities. Such, for instance, are the repre- 
sentations of Jesus as speaking when he is about to come into the world 
(2:12; 10:5), the language that denotes an inception of the Sonship and 
Priesthood (5:5, 6), the implication that Jesus was one with believing 
men before he came to earth (2:11), his relation to the angels (1:4, 6), 
cleansing of the things in the heavens with his blood (9:23), and many 
other ideas which time may prove to be transitory and untenable. 

But there may have been in the writer’s own mind a consciousness 
that part of this was realistic poetic symbolism. And even if this was 
not so, it must be admitted that these peculiar features were only the 
philosophic molds into which the author poured the full content of his 
rich religious experience. 

τ McGiffert, A postolic Age, Ὁ. 477: “Τί was thus the humanity, and not the divinity 
or pre-existence of Christ, which chiefly concerns our author.” This contrast, though 


fundamentally true, is put too sharply to be the best representation of the author of 
the epistle. 


430 


IV. SOURCES AND RELATIONS OF THE THOUGHT OF 
THE EPISTLE 


I. SOURCES AND RELATIONS OF THE GENERAL DOCTRINE 
I. CLASSIC JUDAISM 


The fundamentally Jewish basis of the Epistle to the Hebrews is 
easily recognized without going to the extreme of inferring that the 
readers were exclusively Jews or that the epistle must have been written 
before the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D. and the consequent cessa- 
tion of the Temple ritual. As already remarked, the fundament of the 
epistle is rather the ritual of classic Judaism blended with ideas from later 
apocalyptic Judaism. The God of the Epistle to the Hebrews is the 
Jehovah of the Old Testament who spoke in the prophets to the fathers 
(1:2) and presided over all the fortunes of the ancient people (4:2 ff.; 
chap. 11). He is a consuming fire (12:29). The whole ritual and law 
used as illustration by the writer is clearly that of the Old Testament. 
The priesthood is the Levitical priesthood with the variety of thoughts 
associated therewith—the thought of the sympathy of the high priest as 
being weak and requiring to offer for himself as well as for the people 
(5:1 f.), the idea that the high priest is not self-appointed (5:4) but 
called of God, the idea of purification (1:3 and passim), the idea of God’s 
mediating by an oath as in the case of Abraham (6:13 f.; 7:28 f.), the 
idea of hearts sprinkled from a wicked conscience and bodies washed 
with pure water (10:22). There is also the idea of the new covenant 
taken over from the prophet Jeremiah (8:8 f.). The whole picture of 
Melchizedek, though painted with Alexandrian colors, has its roots in 
the Old Testament story (5:11 f.). Though much might be added, this 
point need not be labored further. It is quite plain that the author of 
Hebrews was steeped in Old Testament literature and religious ideas. 


2. LATER JUDAISM AND PRIMITIVE CHRISTIANITY 


But the writer has added ideas from later apocalyptic Judaism and 
from primitive Jewish Christianity. From later Judaism the writer has 
the idea of the two ages (9:26), the idea of a future judgment (9:27; 
10:30 f. 12:23;), and the idea of a renovated earth as the theater of 
the future messianic age (2:5; 12:26). The slight emphasis however 
upon apocalyptic and eschatological ideas is quite noteworthy. 
The renovation or regeneration is not limited to the earth, as in 
431] 105 


106 HISTORICAL AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES 


Psalms of Solomon, but involves heaven as well as earth, the universe 
of things (12:26). This conception is based very distinctly and 
precisely upon Old Testament prophecy (Hag. 2:6), but is given a 
characteristic turn by reference to created things which are to be shaken 
loose from the things that remain, leaving only the kingdom of abiding 
reality which is the goal and prize of the believer’s faith. This is a 
characteristic combination of the apocalyptic view of later Judaism and 
primitive Christianity with the Alexandrian conception of the invisible 
world of abiding reality which is in its turn identified with the ra 
γενόμενα ἀγαθά (9:11) of Christian faith. It may be noted here that 
the present tenses of 12:28 harmonize well with the idea of a present 
participation of and activity in that kingdom whose full revelation is still 
future. From later Judaism the writer has also his doctrine of angels 
(1:4; 2:5; 12:22; 13:2), though his peculiar use and emphasis of it 
may be due to other influences; his emphasis upon the thought that the 
Old Testament law was given by angels (2:2); and the idea, similar to 
that of Philo, that God or the Holy Spirit was speaking in all the 
words and ceremonies of the Old Testament (9:8). 

More directly from the Christian community and their tradition, 
primitive or Pauline, the writer has the doctrine of Jesus as the Messiah, 
Son of God, as pre-existent, humiliated during the days of his flesh but 
as raised by God and exalted at the right hand of the Majesty in the 
heavens till all his enemies shall have been subdued, but coming again 
presumably for the complete inauguration of the messianic kingdom, 
though the writer does not make his thought definite in this respect. 
He has the idea also of distributions of the Holy Spirit (2:4), that God 
was in all the marvelous signs and works of the postresurrection period 
(2:4). From the tradition of the church the writer has also the thought 
of Jesus’ being of the tribe of Judah (7:14), of his supplicating with tears 
and strong crying for release from death (5:7). From the early church 
he has his views of catechetical doctrine, which he calls the doctrine of 
the beginning of the Christ (6:1), the elements of the beginning of the 
doctrines of God (5:12), viz., repentance, faith in God, the teaching of 
baptisms, the laying on of hands, resurrection of the dead, and eternal 
judgment. The eschatological views of the writer already referred to 
which have their roots in Judaism are modified by the thought of the 
Christian church in their application to the historical Jesus as the 
Messiah. If the writer has received from primitive Christianity the 
suggestion of his great thesis that Jesus is the mediator of a new cove- 
nant, and at the same time its great High Priest and final and sufficient 

432 


THE CHRISTOLOGY OF THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS 107 


sacrifice (9:26, 28), who has entered into the true holy place to appear 
before God on behalf of believers, he has at any rate given it an entirely 
original application and development. With Paul the writer has the 
idea of the glory and honor of Jesus in his exaltation as the reward of 
the suffering of death (12:2; cf. Phil. 2:9). The thought that believers 
are partakers of a heavenly calling is comparable to that of Paul (I Cor. 
1:26). So also is his idea that the Old Testament law, the foregoing 
commandment (7:18), is set aside because of its weakness (Gal. 3:21); 
but his method is still quite distinct and original. He conceives of the 
old as shadow and the new as substance, the familiar Alexandrian 
contrast. Paul does not use this category. Paul thinks of the law as a 
tutor to lead to Christ by stressing the human consciousness of sinfulness 
and weakness. Paul’s conception is rather doctrinal and ethical: that 
of the author of Hebrews is rather ritualistic and religious. 


3. ALEXANDRIANISM 


This dependence of the author of Hebrews upon the classic Judaism 
of the Old Testament and upon later Judaism and upon primitive Chris- 
tianity is strongly colored and modified by his relation to Alexandrian 
thought. From this source mainly he has his idea of Christ as the Logos 
(though he does not apply the term to him) and as Creator and Sup- 
porter of the world (1:2), as the image and representative of God (1:3), 
possibly as a second God (1:8). He has the idea of inspiration developed 
among Alexandrian Jews according to which not the actual writers but 
God (1:1 f.; 5:5; 8:8, 13) or Christ (10:5) or the Holy Spirit (3:7; το: 
15) or “some one” (2:6)—a method of citation indefinite because God 
himself really speaks in all the Scripture—speaks in the prophets and ina 
Son (1:2). God is for the author of Hebrews the father of spirits, not a 
merely technical or philosophical designation, but one that has a certain 
warmth and beauty of religious feeling about it (12:9b). This is a 
characteristic Alexandrian thought.' So is the thought of suffering as the 
chastening of God.? The peculiar use which the author of Hebrews makes 
of the weird figure of Melchizedek is Alexandrian in its exegesis and in its 
whole thought and atmosphere. The thought of the High-Priesthood, 
while essentially that of the Old Testament with its emphasis on ritual, 
is yet touched with the more refined, mystical, abstract conception of 
Philo’s thought. The thought of heaven as being the true Sanctuary 
as opposed to the sanctuary of this world which is but the copy and 
shadow of the heavenly is of course thoroughly Alexandrian (8:5). The 

τ Wisd. 11:26. 2 Wisd. 3:5, 6. 

433 


108 HISTORICAL AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES 


Alexandrian attitude and tendency of the author is evident in his method 
of exegesis, in his description of the word of God (4:12), in the terms which 
he applies and the functions which he assigns to Christ (1:2 f.), in his 
identification of Christianity with the Philonic archetypal world of invis- 


ible reality. 
4. ORIENTAL MYSTERY-RELIGIONS 


But though it is patent on every page of Hebrews that the Old Tes- 
tament and the primitive Christian community including Paul provide 
the substance, while the form or mold in the main is Alexandrian— 
yet one is occasionally conscious of a certain peculiar strain, an unusual 
emphasis, a peculiar atmosphere that does not properly belong to the 
above sources. The explanation of this is to be found in large part, no 
doubt, in the striking originality of the writer. To this factor is to be 
assigned the whole point of view and attack, as well as many separate 
thoughts. 

Leaving, however, the original element for later consideration, the 
variation from the above-named three sources is to be accounted for by 
a certain tinge from the oriental mystery-religions of the time. In the 
first place, the writer’s whole method of presentation is in all probability 
determined by his knowledge of and a certain sympathy with the rites of 
the Hellenistic mystery-religions. It has already been noted that the 
writer’s thought does not revolve about the temple in Jerusalem and its 
services, but about the tabernacle of the Old Testament. It is toa cer- 
tain extent academic. But no man is wholly academic—certainly the 
writer to the Hebrews is only partly so. He is in close touch with his 
people, intensely hortatory and practical. He was writing considerably 
after the fall of Jerusalem when the sacrifices of the temple ceased 
(7o A.D.), but he was not writing to a people—gentiles though they 
probably were—who were unfamiliar with such rites or familiar with 
them only in Old Testament forms. Both he and they were familiar 
with variant forms of that ritual on every side about them. The ritual 
of sacrifice, purification, and baptisms was dead at Jerusalem, but not at 
Rome or in the place whatever it may have been to which this epistle 
was sent. To be sure, the whole setting and presentation of the ritual 
is that of the Old Testament with the Jewish high priest serving in the 
tabernacle. But in its application to Jesus as the great High Priest it 
reveals certain influences from the syncretistic mystery-religions of the 
time. Still more emphatically one may say that this presentation of 
the Christian salvation under the high-priestly category would exhibit 


τ Cf. Cumont, Oriental Religions in Roman Paganism. 
434 


THE CHRISTOLOGY OF THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS 109 


many features thoroughly familiar to the devotees of the varied oriental 
cults. 

In spite of some uncertainty, it is possible to enumerate at least many 
of the touches that seem to be more noticeable. With an emphasis and 
definiteness unknown to the Old Testament, the writer of Hebrews 
declares that “perfection” was the aim of the Levitical law and ritual, 
an aim which it did not and could not attain but which was attained 
finally and perfectly by the new law and voluntary sacrifice of Jesus as 
High Priest. Both the conception of and the emphasis upon 
“nerfection”’ is, I think, indirectly the result of the influence of the 
mystery-religions. Mithraism, the greatest rival of Christianity for 
some centuries, was most intent on securing purification and perfection 
in a very deep moral and spiritual sense’ by various rites of washing, etc., 
and all the other mystery-religions had similar rites with a similar 
aim. The idea that sanctification (ἁγιασμός, 12:14) is necessary in 
order to see the Lord is even for our writer himself tinged with the 
gnostic idea of the mystery-religions. His description of the worshipers 
who are to approach the holy place with hearts sprinkled from an evil 
conscience and their bodies washed with pure water keeps strictly 
neither to Old Testament nor to New Testament phraseology, but bears 
the marks of the mystery-religions. 

The emphasis of the writer upon “‘salvation”’ has its counterpart in 
the mystery-religions.? It isnot meant that the writer took his conception 
directly from the mystery-religions. The idea of salvation, of a future 
salvation, of an eternal salvation secured by participation in some form 
of the divine life and of the God was widespread, but it had become 
widespread through the influence of the thought of mystery-religions. 
Mithra was the Savior-God. Isis gave to her votaries the gift of salva- 
tion, which was a new life after a figurative death, a new life which 
would be enjoyed to the full after death. The salvation of the mystery- 
cults was an eternal salvation. In all this, as will be readily felt, the 
thought of the mystery-religions has worked indirectly but perceptibly 
upon the writer of Hebrews. Jesus Christ has become, after suffering 
death and after resurrection to a new eternal, indissoluble life, the cause 
of eternal salvation to all those who obey him (5:9). Jesus is σωτήρ, 


tFarnell, Evolution of Religion, p. 127; Cumont, Oriental Religions in Roman 
Paganism, pp. 154 f. 


2 Cf. Lietzmann, Der Weltheiland. 
3 Reitzenstein, Die hellenistischen Mysterienreligionen, S. 25 f. 
435 


110 HISTORICAL AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES 


‘‘Savior,’”’ as were the deities of the various oriental cults. The vision 
of God is “salvation” (11:27; 12:14).! 

And not only in the peculiar emphasis upon and atmosphere about 
the concept of salvation (σωτηρία), but also in the significance of the term, 
is the influence of the Gnosticism of the oriental religions discernible. 
As is well known, these Gnostic cults amid their many variations agree 
in ringing the changes upon life, light, and gnosis or knowledge. In 
this, according to them, consists salvation, in contrast with the primitive 
Christian community where salvation meant rather forgiveness of sins 
and the gift of the Holy Spirit (Acts 2:33; 2:38, 47), secured upon 
repentance (Acts 3:19 f.) and faith in Jesus Christ as risen Messiah and 
Lord (Acts 3:26; 4:2). The Pauline conception of salvation reaches 
to more profound and mystical depths, and by so much approaches the 
conception of salvation held by the oriental cults. Paul’s own salvation 
was due to a superhuman enlightenment. But though Paul manifests 
the influence of Gnosticism, he does not conform his conception of 
salvation to that of the gnostic sects. The Pauline salvation is a 
justification by faith involving forgiveness of sins, release of the con- 
science from the sense and burden of guilt, right relations with God, and 
a new power of life generated by the mystical indwelling of Christ by 
faith. The Pauline thought, while touched with Gnosticism, is rather 
mystical in an independent, original manner. The writer to the Hebrews 
is less mystical, but has more approach to the oriental cults in his 
technical descriptions of salvation and conversion. With him con- 
version is an enlightenment (10:32), as with Paul (II Cor. 4:6), and 
that too, a single (ἅπαξ) enlightenment. φωτίζειν is the technical word 
of the oriental cults.2 The Epistle to the Hebrews makes very little 
reference to what is now called conversion, as it is directed forward 
rather than backward; it is theological rather than historical. But this 
reference (10:32) which it makes is decidedly gnostic. So too is the 
phrase of 10:26, also descriptive of conversion, viz., ‘After that we have 
received the knowledge of the truth.” Perhaps the peculiar use of 
the term “word of hearing’ (4:2), as used by this Jewish-Christian 
writer, manifests a touch of influence of the mysteries. Indeed the 
writer casts a strange halo about the function of hearing. He idealizes 


τ Cf. Reitzenstein, op. cit., S. 39 f.; also S. 25: “ΟΡ unsere theologischen Er- 
klarungen des cwr%p-Begriffes nicht gut taten, letztere Bedeutung auch in den Kultbe- 
zeichnungen salutaris dea, ἾἿσις σώτειρα, Σάραπις σωτήρ ein wenig mehr zu betonen ?” 
Cf. also Apuleius, and Lietzmann, Der Weltheiland. 


2 Reitzenstein, Die hellenistischen M ysterienreligionen, S. 119. 
436 


THE CHRISTOLOGY OF THE EPISTLE ΤῸ THE HEBREWS 111 


it in the case both of Jesus and the disciples (2:3) and of the ancient 
Israelites (4:2). The oriental religions, especially in their earlier stages 
of development, made much of the sacred office of “hearing.” To 
“hear” the word of the God was to receive his power and his inbreathing, 
his πνεῦμα. In the thought of the mysteries hearing was sufficient, 
faith was not required. But in the thought of the writer to the Hebrews, 
the ancient Israelites failed to enter into the promised rest because their 
hearing was not united with faith. 

There are still other touches of the mystery-religions in the Epistle 
to the Hebrews. The writer’s conception of faith differs somewhat from 
that of Judaism, that of the primitive Christian church, and that of Paul. 
It approaches the conception of the mystery-religions. It is intuitive and 
philosophical rather than personal and ethical as with the Jews and the 
primitive Christian church, or personal, ethical, and mystical as with 
Paul. In this epistle the view of faith, particularly as presented 
in the eleventh chapter, reckons doctrinal content as comparatively 
secondary. Insight, the vision power, is the important thing, the 
realization of things unseen. Faith is seeing the invisible God (11:1; 
11:27b?), which is a very close approach to the gnosis of the mystery- 
religions. It is probably under the influence of these mystery-religions 
that our author gives this particular turn to faith. This conception is 
a powerful one, however, not for what it is in itself, but for its power of 
reflex action. It is a giving substance to things that are as yet but 
hoped for, and therefore a putting to the test of things unseen (11:1). 
Closely related to this conception of faith is the writer’s emphasis on 
hope; this may also be a touch from the Hellenistic mysteries, which 
greatly emphasized hope. 

In all probability the peculiar emphasis of our writer upon the place 
and function of angels is due to the influence of the mystery-religions. 
The roots of the doctrine of angels go back to early Semitic teaching. 
They bear their fruit in the emphasis upon angels in the Old Testament. 
Further development is found in the figurative, philosophical interpre- 
tations of Philo with regard to the angels. But Philo is not to be credited 
with all the development in this direction which he manifests. The 

1Cf. Gal. 3:2, “received ye the spirit from the works of the law or from the 
hearing of faith,” ἐξ ἀκοῆς πίστεως; Reitzenstein, of. cit.,S. 138. A somewhat similar 


use of the word ἀκοή is found in Corp. Herm., XIII, 17, quoted by Reitzenstein: πᾶσα 
φύσις κόσμου προσδεχέσθω Tov ὑμνοὺ τὴν ἀκοήν. 


2 Reitzenstein, Poimandres, S. 12; cf. Heb. 11:27. 


3 Reitzenstein, op. cit., 8. 85, note: τὸ yap νοῆσαι ἐστὶ τὸ πιστεῦσαι. 
437 


112 HISTORICAL AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES 


emphasis on angels is a mark of the syncretistic religious development of 
his day. Many of the mystery-religions made much of the place and 
functions of minor gods often called angels or powers.’ This was 
especially true of the more pronouncedly dualistic religions, such as 
that of Mithra, which was compounded with a strong Persian element. 
Here there were demons under Ahriman arrayed against the good angels 
who were the celestial spirits, the messengers of Ahura-Mazda.? That 
there was any direct contact between Mithraism and the Epistle to the 
Hebrews it would be hazardous to state, but there may very well have 
been contact with common origins in the syncretistic religions of the day. 
The writer makes much of angels. They are God’s ministers sent forth 
to do service for those who are to inherit salvation (1:14). In 
all probability the general assembly and gathering of the firstborn 
enrolled in heaven is the myriads of angels (12:23). This does not sound 
like Old Testament, primitive Christian, or Pauline doctrine, but is not 
on that account to be rejected. This peculiar importance attached to 
angels is probably mediated by the syncretistic religions of the day, 
which made so much of celestial spirits, angels, powers, deities, and 
demons.4 But though the author gives an exalted position to angels, it 
is not at the expense of the position of Christ. Many of the oriental 
syncretistic religions gave high places and great powers to these subor- 
dinate deities and celestial beings, as is evidenced from the gnostic 
systems into which they developed. The circles to whom the writer to 
the Hebrews wrote were yielding to the tendency to exalt angels unduly. 
Consequently at the very beginning of his remarkable epistle the writer 
claims the supreme place and the supreme name for the “Son” (1:4 f.), 
adding that to Jesus and not to angels did God subject the coming age, 
the perfect world that was to be, the subject of his discourse (2:5). In 
the Hermetic literature the same Greek word is used in the passive, 
expressing the subjection of the world to Hermes.5 Such thoughts as 
these led the author of this Epistle to give the supreme place in the 
world to come to Jesus who alone was worthy of it.® 

Is it possible that the impulse to the rich and original thought of the 
sequel of this passage (2:5 f.), particularly of 2:10 f., should have come 


t Plutarch, De Isis et Osiris, 30. 
2 Cumont, Oriental Religions in Roman Paganism, pp. 152, 158. 
3 Cf. A. B. Davidson, Hebrews, ad loc. 
4 Plutarch, De defectu orac., 10, p. 415A. 
5 Reitzenstein, Poimandres, 8. 23: διὸ καὶ πάντα broréraxral σοι; cf. Heb. 10:13. 
6 Cumont, Oriental Religions in Roman Paganism, p. 266, n. 38. 
438 


THE CHRISTOLOGY OF THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS 113 


from the oriental cults? The picture is that of a man taken from the 
midst of his companions, his brethren (2:11 f.), charged by God with the 
responsibility of leading his brethren to salvation and glory, and for this 
cause becoming identified with them, vanquishing death and delivering 
them from their lifelong bondage to death (2:14 f.).t These are the 
main outlines of the Redeemer of the various mystery-religions, and 
especially that of Mithra, which apparently was very militant and withal 
very democratic. The situation reminds one also of the deliverance of 
Alcestis from death by Heracles. Jesus became like his brethren that 
through death he might bring to naught him that had the power of 
death, that is, the devil, and deliver those who through fear of death 
were all their lifetime subject to bondage (2:14 f.). Mithra was such 
a redeemer on behalf of men. He was the captain and leader of the 
soldiers, one of their company and in sympathy with them, the strong 
companion of souls in their trials and struggles (2:17, 18). Like Jesus, 
Mithra brought the souls of those who took the oath of loyalty to him 
out of the darkness into the supernal light of the upper heaven (cf. Heb. 
4:14 f.; 7:26f.; 9:11f., 24, 28). The emphasis upon devotion, loyalty, 
faithfulness, the necessity of perseverance, the virile qualities so char- 
acteristic of Hebrews, was characteristic of the Mithra cult.2, Mithra was 
perfected, “sanctus’”;3 so was Jesus. Mithra led the way of souls into 
the upper regions of light. Hermes also was the guide or attendant of 
souls.4 So Jesus is the forerunner of believers, entering for them into the 
very inner shrine, the true sanctuary, where dwells the divine presence, 
and thus opening up for his followers also a new and living way of access 
into the divine presence (4:14; 6:20; 9:11 f.). Mithra is μεσίτης .5 
so is Jesus. Do not both the ideas and the terminology here show traces 
of the mystery-cults? Mithra, Isis, Osiris, Adonis are all men who are 
represented as vanquishing death in personal victory. They died and 
rose as gods. Immortality and divinity are to be gained by union with 
them (cf. 3:14; 5:9; 7:16). Perhaps the extremely somber tinge in 
Hebrews has some relation to the similar feeling of awe that attended 
the mystery-cults. 

There is a striking parallel drawn between Moses and Jesus in their 
relation to the house of God, showing the superiority of Jesus (3:2 f.). 


τ Cumont, op. cit., p. 1530. 2 Cumont, op. cit., pp. 153, 156 f. 
5 Cumont, op. cit., p. 269. 
oh, Reitzenstein, Poimandres, S. 23b: ‘‘ Die Tatigkeit dieses Hermes ist nach der von 
Dieterich herausgegebenen Theogonie das ὁδηγεῖν der Seele.” 
5 Plutarch, De Isis et Osiris, 46; cf. Gruppe, Griech. Mythologie, 8. 159. 
439 


114 HISTORICAL AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES 


In this passage the phrase οἶκος τοῦ θεοῦ is used in an unusual man- 
ner, equivalent to “household” and denoting Christian believers 
(3:6). An approach to this peculiar use is quoted by Reitzenstein. 
To Heb. 2:10, “ΕῸΓ whom are all things and through whom are all 
things,” there is found a close parallel in the mystery-religions as given 
by Berthelot,? ἕν τὸ πᾶν καὶ δἰ αὐτοῦ τὸ πᾶν καὶ εἰς αὐτὸ τὸ πᾶν (cf. Rom. 
1τ:36). 

There are still many similarities in Hebrews as compared with the 
mystery-cults. The mystae were called “brethren,” and ἅγιοι,3 and 
were considered as receiving a heavenly calling (3:1). The emphasis 
in the epistle upon the fact that Christ did not presume to take this high 
and holy office of Priesthood to himself but was called of God (5:4, 5) 
has its counterpart in the mystic cults.4 The worthy worship of the 
mystic on seeing the vision of God and securing salvation is the song of 
praise (cf. 13:15). The mystic after his new birth is fed with milk until 
he is able to bear the deeper mysteries.5 Among some of the deity 
worshipers of the mystery-cults the deity was θεὸς ὕψιστος (cf. Heb. 7:1). 
The thought of Jesus as the “‘great shepherd”? may have its roots in 
the Hermetic literature of the mystery-religions, as is the case with John, 
chap. 10, the Shepherd of Hermas, and other Christian passages.® 

There are other ideas in Hebrews which might suggest the influence 
of mystery-cults, but about which there must remain considerable 
uncertainty, at least in the present state of knowledge upon the subject. 
They may be mentioned briefly. The description of the word of God as 
living, active, etc., of 4:12; the thought of a general assembly and 
gathering in heaven, an assembly of spirit-beings of whom Jesus is one 
(12:23) having gone through the heavens (4:14; 7:26) may be paralleled 
by the ascension of Mithra and still more closely by that of Hermes’ the 
Great who was exalted to the spirit world and classed among the number 
of the spirits. As to the deep conviction of the writer of Hebrews that 
the old priesthood and the old covenant have failed to meet the deep 
need of the conscience and therefore have passed away, because God 
who spoke formerly in the prophets has now spoken in a Son, Jesus, 


τ Op. cit.,S.25: 6 οἶκος τοὺ παντοκράτορος θεοῦ; cf. footnote 1. 
3 Alchemistes grecs, Introduction, 5. 133. 
3 Reitzenstein, op. cit., S. 27. 
4 Thid., S. 256, 26b. 
S701.) S525) 521 ΘΙ ἢ ΘΕ. 2:2; ΕΙΒΌΣ ΠΣ ΤΩΣ 
6 Reitzenstein, op. cit., 5. 340, 35; also cf. ibid., Gebet, VIII, IX, 5. 31, n. 3. 
7 Reitzenstein, op. cit.,S. 171 and n. 3. 
440 


THE CHRISTOLOGY OF THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS 115 


may this profound thought, with its roots in the Melchizedek-story 
of the Old Testament and in Jeremiah, have had its counterpart in the 
idea of the mystery-religions that if God spoke to an individual con- 
secrated to himself, that word, that revelation superseded the earlier ?* 

Summary.—This presentation is by no means complete. The aim 
has simply been to show that there is some influence from the mystery- 
religions of the time upon the Epistle to the Hebrews—more than has 
been recognized. Indeed it would be hazardous at this stage of the 
historical study of the relation of primitive Christianity to the Hellenistic 
mystery-religions to say with precision just how much from the mystery- 
religions is found in any of the New Testament books—even in that one 
in which the mystery-element is most easily detected, the Fourth 
Gospel. It can only be said of the New Testament as a whole, as has 
been said just above of this epistle, that the element from the mystery- 
religions is larger than has been generally recognized. 

With still less certainty can the exact nature and sources of this 
relationship be stated. In the case of the Epistle to the Hebrews at 
least, it is clear that classic Judaism as seen in the Old Testament, 
Alexandrianism, and primitive Christianity including Paulinism, form the 
three main strands. But it is to be noted that in all probability Alex- 
andrianism, whose influence in the book is clear and has been emphasized, 
is not nearly so much of a unit as has hitherto been thought. It (and 
particularly Philo and the Wisdom of Solomon) has been more strongly 
charged with the mystery element of the syncretism of the day than we 
have supposed. In any case it is hoped it will be clear from the above 
that the writer of the Epistle to the Hebrews was neither a man who 
interpreted and presented Christianity from the current Judaism of 
his day as it was carried out in rite and ceremony, nor on the other hand 
was he an academic recluse who viewed the ancient tabernacle afar off 
and theorized upon it. It may be added that he was not fundamentally 
ethical and eschatological as were the synoptists, not profoundly ethical, 
philosophical, and mystical as was Paul, nor yet so non-eschatological, 
philosophical, and mystical as the author of the Fourth Gospel. He was 
a cultured, earnest man (probably a Jew of the Dispersion) who felt 
within himself the deep need for a redemption (9:12), a purification 
(9:14), and a salvation (7:25) which would be satisfactory and final, 
for both the present and the future. Like Paul, he felt the whole 
creation groaning and travailing together, and longed for a satisfactory 
deliverance. This he found secured for the present and the future in 

1 Tbid., 5. 18 f. 

441 


116 HISTORICAL AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES 


Jesus Christ, and sealed in his own personal experience, upon the testi- 
mony of those who had known and heard Jesus himself. When however 
he would express this experience, when he would expound the thought- 
relations of his new faith which, in its religious substance, he had received 
from the Christian tradition, he fell back instinctively upon the Jewish 
Scriptures and the Jewish ritual and law or covenant. As compared 
with Paul and the primitive Christian community, however, the writer 
of Hebrews makes much more of the Levitical ritual and particularly of 
the category of the high-priesthood and its sacrifices. The Christian 
tradition had indeed come to connect the forgiveness of sin at first with 
the resurrection and exaltation of Jesus (Acts 3:26; 5:31), and later with 
his crucifixion and death (Matt. 26:28). Paul also had made close con- 
nection between forgiveness and the death of Jesus (Rom. 4:25), and 
had even made an approach toward explaining the significance and work 
of Jesus by use of the Old Testament ritual (I Cor. 5:7). But it is to be 
noted that this reference to Christ as the Passover sacrifice is not 
employed by Paul to expound the significance of the death of Christ, 
but to point quite another lesson (I Cor. 5:8). It was left for the writer 
of the Hebrews to blaze the way toward a thorough exposition of the 
significance of Jesus and of primitive Christianity by reference to the 
Levitical priesthood and ritual of the Old Testament. 

This frame of thought which our author uses for the exposition of his 
Christian experience secured through the Christian tradition is filled in, 
so to speak, under the immediate influence of two contemporaneous 
movements of thought, viz., Alexandrianism and the syncretism of the 
mystery-religions. As has been already noted, these two were not by 
any means wholly independent, for the latter had influenced the former. 
But practically they were two quite distinguishable streams of thought. 
The former gave to our author the great contrast of the κόσμος νοητός 
and the κόσμος αἰσθητός, which he uses with such splendid effect in 
the exposition of his Christian experience. Both Paul and our author 
had broken decisively with ancient Judaism in their thought of Chris- 
tianity as an independent and final movement. But each is independent 
and different in his conception of the relation of the new to the old, or 
at least in his expression of that conception. With Paul the law 
(Paul puts no emphasis whatever on the ritual) was intercalated, tem- 
porary, and preparatory. The real thing both before and after the law 
was faith and the promises of God. The law was but a paidagogos to 
bring men to Christ (Gal. 3:7 f.). This was quite derogatory to the 
law, and it is not surprising that in the wake of Paul’s view many extreme 

442 


THE CHRISTOLOGY OF THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS 117 


heresies followed, subversive of elements of value in Judaism. Our 
author on the other hand views the law and the ritual as temporary 
and preparatory, but not as intercalated. The Alexandrian contrast is 
seized upon by our author. The law and its ritual is an adumbration 
only of the real thing, an imperfect copy of the heavenly antitype; it 
belongs to “‘this” world, the world of the visible and tangible. Jesus 
Christ and Christianity, on the other hand, in spite of a certain unsatis- 
factory indefiniteness, are meant evidently to be identified with the 
“other” world, with the world of heavenly realities, the world of the 
invisible and intangible. The Old Testament law and ritual were but 
shadow: Christianity is the substance. It would surely be ingratitude 
to complain of our author because he has still left Christianity bound up 
with a contrast, both of time and space, as E. F. Scott seems to do.* 
We ought to be thankful that he has set up the contrast which is bound 
to be permanent in some form in the Christian view and has identified 
Christianity with the other world of permanent realities. He could 
express his feeling of the contrast only in some one of the thought-forms 
of his day and he chose the Platonic-Philonic form because it came to 
him spontaneously and naturally as the best and richest medium of 
expression. 

But the writer’s frame of thought was filled out also from the syn- 
cretism of the mystery-religions of his day. This element may be 
comparatively small, but it is an influence that must be noted. That 
our writer emphasized the ritual while Paul spoke only of the law may be 
due to the contemporaneous influence of the rites and ceremonies of the 
mystery-cults. Their influence on his idea of the function of the angels, 
on his conception of faith, of revelation, of perfection, of conversion as 
enlightenment, of voluntary self-offering, as well as on many other 
conceptions of the writer, has been noticed. But the chief influence of 
the mystery-religions has been upon the writer’s conception, or perhaps 
rather, description, of salvation and redemption and upon his picture of 
Jesus as the divine-human Redeemer. This influence is indirect, prob- 
ably, and is shared by other Christian writers, e.g., Paul. But it is more 
marked in Hebrews than in Paul, inasmuch as Hebrews makes much 
more of the human element in Jesus than does Paul. With the author 
of Hebrews Jesus is pre-existent, to be sure, but yet a man who has 
struggled through opposition and suffering to personal perfection, who 
has fought his way to victory over death and him who has the power of 
death. He has done this as an earnest, God-fearing, devout man who 


t A pologetic of the New Testament, pp. 202, 203. 
443 


118 HISTORICAL AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES 


has therefore, being called and exalted by God, become the Redeemer 
and Savior of men, having passed through the heavens and entered the 
inner sanctuary of God’s presence. This picture of Jesus is modeled 
after the human redeemer of the mystery-religions much more than that 
of Paul is. It occurs at a more advanced stage. On the other hand, as 
compared with the Fourth Gospel, the influence of the mystery-religions 
is less and earlier. In Hebrews the influence of the mystery-religions is 
ritualistic and religious in its character. In the Fourth Gospel it has 
become decidedly philosophical. It is not philosophical in Hebrews. 
In fact, one might say that in the Fourth Gospel the influence is that 
of the later Gnosticism, not of the earlier mystery-religions. In the 
Fourth Gospel the picture of Christ is not at all that of the devout, 
faithful man struggling toward perfection and victory and so mediating 
salvation. He is a real man in theory, to be sure, as must be held 
against extreme Gnosticism, but he is actually and always the perfect 
divine form of the Son of God. It may of course be replied that he is 
really such in Hebrews also, and there is a certain degree of truth in the 
statement. But the emphasis is very much more upon the human side 
involving faithfulness, struggle, and development. This is evident from 
the very vivid and realistic picture of Jesus given in Heb. 5:7-10, a 
passage which bears marks of the influence of the mystery-religions with 
their pictures of the human-divine Redeemer. 


5. PROBABLE ORIGINAL ELEMENTS 


To return to the attempt to present the various strands of the 
writer’s thought, it is necessary only to call attention finally to what 
seem in all probability to be the original thoughts of the writer. This 
is a rather difficult task. The original element in a writer will vary or 
even vanish according to the severity of the critic’s judgment. The 
effort to trace genetic development is apt to eliminate the original 
element, with the result that no individual is original. Allowance must 
be made for difference of opinion. Strict and definite decisions are quite 
impossible, but the following is an attempt to set forth in a general and 
brief way the elements probably original in Hebrews. 

As already noted, the effort to set forth the significance and supe- 
riority of Christ and Christianity by extended and detailed comparison 
with the Old Testament ritual and law is original with our writer. Very 
soon, indeed, after the resurrection of Jesus the Christians began to see in 
Jesus and the new movement the fulfilment of various Old Testament 
prophecies (Acts 1:20; 2:16f.; 4:25). This conviction entered the 

444 


THE CHRISTOLOGY OF THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS 119 


earliest tradition (Mark 1:2-8; cf. Matt. 3:1-12; Luke 3:1-18), and is 
especially prominent in Matthew’s Gospel. Paul had made much of the 
same thought (Rom. 1:2; 3:21; 16:26; Gal. 3:8, etc.). But no one 
makes the close connection which the writer of this epistle makes. No 
one had deliberately chosen the Old Testament ritual and law as the 
background against which to present in fulness of detail, partly as 
parallel, partly as contrast, the substance of the significance of Jesus 
Christ and the Christian system. This was original with the author 
of Hebrews. 

Insight into the weakness and unsatisfactoriness of the Old Testament 
law and ritual was not original. Paul felt it in very much the same way 
(Gal. 3:21). But conceiving of the Old Testament law and ritual as 
shadow and identifying Christianity with the substance is original. A 
feeling of the necessity of sacrifice for the sake of forgiveness and inner 
moral harmony and victory is common to both Paul and our author, 
more profoundly felt by Paul but more expressly stated by Hebrews 
(9:22; 10:4). But ourauthor is original in the clearness and definiteness 
with which he feels and states that the essence of the final religion, 
Christianity, consists in two things, viz., the forgiveness of sins implying 
a cleansing of the conscience on the one hand (9:14), and on the other 
communion with and devotion to the service of the living God, father of 
Jesus Christ (9:14; 10:19, passim). The writer feels that where this 
is attained, all rites and ceremonies are forthwith rendered useless and 
obsolete (10:18); so much so that he apparently has no place for the 
forgiveness of further sins (10:26 f.) as the Johannine author has (I 
John τ: 7f.). This view of salvation is not attended by an elaborate 
and profound theological system. It is original in its directness and 
simplicity. The attainment of this final goal of satisfactory religious 
experience is assigned, causally, wholly to the voluntary sacrifice of the 
perfected Christ (5:9; 10:19f.), interpreted according to the ritual of 
Old Testament sacrifice. But it is very plain that the basal reality is 
the experience and not the interpretation. 

The author is original in being the first to relate the new to the old 
as being both revelations of the one living God parallel to each other, 
though the revelation in the Son is supreme and final. It is noteworthy 
too that he compares the revelation in Jesus to the revelation in the 
prophets (1:1 f.). 

There are many other comparatively minor elements which are 
peculiar to the author. Such, for example, are his line of argument 
showing Jesus Christ to be superior to the angels, to Moses, and to the 

445 


120 HISTORICAL AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES 


Levitical high priest, as well as his idea of the superiority of the new 
sacrifice and the new covenant; the idea of the perfecting of Jesus 
through suffering; the identification of Jesus as captain of salvation 
with the sons whom God is bringing unto glory, an identification com- 
plete in all respects excepting sin; the idea that Jesus is not ashamed to 
call these sons brethren; the idea of believers as God’s house with Moses 
in it and Jesus over it, both alike faithful, the one as servant, the other 
as Son; the idea of a sabbatismos or spiritual rest with God; the idea of 
the impossibility of a second repentance, forgiveness, and restoration 
(6:6); the idea of “tasting,” which is so frequent with the author, 
tasting of death (2:9), tasting of the heavenly gift, the good word of 
God, the powers of the age to come (6:4f.); the idea of hope entering 
as an anchor into the inner sanctuary and steadying the soul (6:19); 
the idea of Jesus as a forerunner (6:20); the thought that Jesus is High 
Priest by oath of God (7:20); that Jesus is the surety of a better cove- 
nant (7:22); interpretation of the veil as indication of the thought that 
access into the fulness of God’s presence was not yet secured (9:8); the 
idea that the veil is the flesh of Jesus (10:20) (this may turn out to be 
an idea from the mystery-religions); the repeated exhortation to patience, 
confidence, and obedience in order to secure the promise which stil] 
reaches into the future for the readers as it had for their fathers (10:39; 
11:40); the idea of Jesus as the leader and perfecter of faith (12:2); the 
emphasis upon the greater danger, responsibility, and punishment of 
apostates (12:14 f.); upon the need of meeting together, confessing to 
the name of God, offering the sacrifice of praise, etc. (13:15). 


II. SOURCES AND RELATIONS OF THE CHRISTOLOGICAL DOCTRINE, 
INCLUDING AN OUTLINE OF NEW TESTAMENT CHRISTOLOGY 


I. CONSIDERATION OF PS. 2:7 AS USED IN HEB. I:5 AND 5:5 


In considering more precisely the sources and relations of the chris- 
tological doctrine of the Epistle to the Hebrews the starting-point will be 
the passage already discussed with considerable fulness and found as a 
quotation from Ps. 2:7 in Heb. 1:5 and 5:5, viz., ““Thou art my son, I 
today have begotten thee.’’ This passage is quoted in the first case 
(1:5) as proving the superior dignity of the Son over that of the angels; 
in the second case (5:5) as constituting the call by God to the High- 
Priesthood. It has been shown above that this quotation is a remnant 
of the adoption Christology, probably the earliest form of Christology 
held by the primitive church (Acts 2:22, 36). It is not at all 4 propos 
of the situation in Hebrews, as the Christology of the writer of the 

446 


THE CHRISTOLOGY OF THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS 121 


Epistle is certainly not the adoption Christology. Any literal and in 
fact any meaningful application of the phrase in the connection in 
Hebrews (1:5 and 5:5) is impossible. Where and when could and did 
the phrase have a proper meaning as applied to Jesus? The most 
satisfactory answer seems to be furnished by the words of Paul in his 
address in the synagogue at Antioch of Pisidia (Acts 13:33-39). It is 
true that this passage does not happen to fall within the earlier twelve 
chapters which clearly represent a primitive Christology. But a double 
answer to this objection may be made. First, the thought of the passage 
(Acts 13:33-39) is very closely paralleled by various passages in the 
earlier chapters (Acts 2:22-36; 3:18-26; 5:30-32), although the words 
from Ps. 2:7 are not quoted. Secondly, there are good reasons for 
believing that Luke is here in substance following good sources. But 
this passage itself is ambiguous. The words “having raised up Jesus”’ 
of vs. 33 may refer to God’s bringing Jesus into his active prophetic 
work of preaching and so be localized in the Baptism (cf. Acts 3:22; 
13:22).2, On the other hand it may refer to the Resurrection. It would 
seem most probable that Chase’s point is well taken in referring Acts 
13:32 to the Baptism of Jesus and Acts 13:34 to the Resurrection, and 
in drawing a comparison with Rom. 1:4 where, by emphasizing the 
phrase “‘with power,” a distinct though latent reference to the declara- 
tion of Sonship at the Baptism may be felt. 

If this is so, then these two passages (Acts 13:32, 33 and Rom. 1:4) 
represent a stage of christological development with two prominent foci, 
viz., the Baptism and the Resurrection.4 They are not mutually 
exclusive except to the severely logical. Both however were unsatis- 
factory declarations of Sonship as primitive Christian thought struggled 
in its polemic with Greek philosophy and the mystery-religions. A 
higher conception of Sonship must be developed, both to express the 
wonderful significance of Jesus as it dawned increasingly upon the early 
Christians and to cope adequately with the higher conceptions of the 
Graeco-Roman world of religious thought. The thought of the Resur- 
rection in the Sonship of Jesus naturally became more prominent while 
the thought of the Baptism in connection with Sonship vanished. So 
the most plausible though not necessary references of the quotations of 


t Chase, The Credibility of the Book of the Acts of the Apostles, pp. 179 {.; Harnack, 
The Acts of the Apostles, pp. 195 f. 


2 So Chase, op. cit., pp. 187 f. 
3So H. J. Holtzmann, Handcommentar zum N.T.., ad loc. 


4Cf. Luke 3:22; D eé al. 
447 


122 HISTORICAL AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES 


Ps. 2:7 in Hebrews (1:5; 5:5) is to the time of the Resurrection. For 
the early Christians the Resurrection was the more prominent, but their 
conception of Jesus’ experience at the Baptism did not fail them. They 
were consistent adoptionists. With Paul the idea of Sonship by divine 
choice and descent of the spirit at the Baptism was latent and unempha- 
sized, if present at all. With the writer of the Epistle to the Hebrews 
the idea of Sonship at the Baptism was gone and the idea of Sonship by 
the Resurrection was latent and unemphasized. Both Paul and this 
writer had made far advance toward the higher category of essential 
Sonship implying pre-existence and some approach to Deity. In certain 
circles the inception of Sonship was pushed back to the very beginning 
of the earthly life and made dependent directly upon God himself 
(Matt. 1:18=Luke 1:35) and essential, not merely declarative or 
adoptive. The Fourth Gospel, as is well known, abolishes the thought 
of the inception of Sonship entirely. Jesus was the incarnation of the 
Logos, the word made flesh, the eternal Son of God. 


2. JESUS’ SELF-ESTIMATE 


What was Jesus’ own conception of his Sonship and of the Baptism 
experience in relation to it? The most varied answers are given to this 
question. On the one hand he is conceived as a thoroughgoing but sadly 
deluded eschatologist (Schweitzer); on the other, by clever critical 
cutting and slashing, every eschatological reference and thought is 
removed from him (Sharman). Again, by the orthodox view he is 
credited with a thought of himself as Son of God and Savior of men, 
such as Paul or the Fourth Gospel held of him (Warfield). By others 
(Harnack) he was in his own thought of himself and his mission a mono- 
theist of the purest type whose whole thought and only thought was of 
God and the Kingdom of God, who had not the slightest thought of 
interjecting himself in any sense or to any degree between his brother- 
men and God. 

The following presentation of Jesus’ thought of himself is meant to 
be tentative. In spite of the fact that mediating views are apt to be 
unsatisfactory, it appears increasingly probable that in this case only a 
mediating view of some sort will meet the most important facts and 
satisfy the situation. At the heart and at the summit of Jesus’ religious 
life and thought there were two dominant and all-engrossing conceptions, 
viz., his conception of God and his conception of the Kingdom of God. 
With Jesus, God is supreme, and never for one moment does he think of 
displacing or supplanting God as the sole and supreme object, not only 

448 


THE CHRISTOLOGY OF THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS 123 


of his own affections and efforts, but also of the affections and efforts of 
his fellow-men (Mark 12:29, 30 ||). There can be no discounting of this 
fact so strongly emphasized by the religious-historical school of interpre- 
tation. And yet the records and experience of primitive Christianity 
demand caution in two directions. In the first place, the most careful 
and conscientious historical criticism leaves a residuum which demands 
for Jesus in his thought of himself a unique place, not only in the fate 
and fortune of his nation and of individual persons (Mark 1:22 ||; 
2:9f.; 8:28}; Matt. 23:29 f.=Luke 11:47 f.; Matt. 11:11 =Luke 7:28; 
Mark 2:21 f. ||; Mark 10:17 f.; Mark 10:45, etc.),! but also in his 
relation to God (Mark 1:11 || and in Q [second source]; Matt. 4:1-11 || 
=Luke 4:1-12; Mark 14:61 ||; Matt. 11:27=Luke 10:22). It is 
clear that Jesus possessed unique God-consciousness. The conditions of 
possessing it, however, were not exclusive or peculiar to himself. He 
expected others to share it, yet only through himself (Matt. 11:27). 
Its uniqueness was not necessarily a solitary, exclusive thing: it was a 
simple fact.s The incidents and words which remain after historical 
criticism of the synoptic picture of Jesus, indicate that in his own thought 
Jesus became the way to God, the mediator of this unique God- 
consciousness which for Jesus also implied salvation.4 The liberal school 
recognizes this high place which Jesus took in his own thought and 
bearing—a certain commanding, Napoleonic attitude in the moral and 
spiritual realm of God and of national and human life. But with them 
it is simply the regular attitude of the prophet. It is doubtful however 
whether such an explanation will prove satisfactory. Some special 
explanation is demanded, and need not be feared provided one remem- 
bers constantly that it is the fact of Jesus’ consciousness and men’s 
experience that is of supreme and permanent value, not the explanation, 
even though it be the right one.5 

*Weinel, Biblische Theologie des Neuen Testaments, sec. 32, recognizes this quite 
keenly. 


2 Harnack, What Is Christianity? p. 128, minimizes the depth and richness of this 
passage (Matt. 11:27). In its original form it was probably less Johannine in its 
atmosphere and significance, but in its clear depths rich personal relationships are 
mirrored rather than mere knowledge. 

3 Weinel, op. cit., sec. 33, S. 185). 

4 Weinel, op. cit., sec. 24. 

5 The liberal school has done splendid work in presenting the historical Jesus. 
Because of the excellence of its work one is reluctant to criticize. But it is a fact that 
in one sentence they put such a high estimate upon Jesus that they place him per- 
manently beyond our reach (Bousset, Jesus, p. 149: “He is, and must remain, beyond 


449 


124 HISTORICAL AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES 


In the second place, caution against over-accentuating the supremacy 
of God in Jesus’ thought must be corrected by remembering that preg- 
nant word of Jesus himself that a prophet is not without honor save in 
his own country and among his own kin and in his own house (Mark 
6:4=Matt. 13:57). Rarely is a great man’s significance rightly esti- 
mated by his own generation and his own people. But does this not 
apply to the great man himself? Can he see himself in his true sig- 
nificance? Can he evaluate himself and his work precisely? And even 
if he can, need he consciously insist on that evaluation and the position 
consonant therewith? In the increasing recognition of the contribution 
of the general social religious consciousness to the Christianity of the first 
century is it not necessary to make room for an added increment to the 
significance of Jesus, recognized not by himself but by the primitive 
Christian community? The immense results following in the wake of 
Jesus’ life and death surely contributed something to the elucidation of 
Jesus’ significance, much as the results following upon the publication of 
the origin of species contributed something to the elucidation of the 
significance of Darwin. The results of the Christian movement may 
quite legitimately show that Jesus’ significance was greater, his position 
higher than he himself claimed, indeed than he himself was conscious of. 
It depends on a careful consideration of all the facts, not merely and 
only upon arriving at Jesus’ own self-estimate." 

Next to the thought of God as Father, the conception of the Kingdom 
of God aroused the enthusiasm and engaged the attention and effort of 
Jesus. His thought of the Kingdom was not purely eschatological 
(Schweitzer), not purely inner and ethical (Harnack); not wholly future, 
not wholly present. Jesus changed the meaning and content of the terms 
Kingdom of God and Messiah for the better in much the same way as 
our reach’’), while in another sentence they tend to minimize his person and function. 
Their high estimate of Jesus leaves the impression of being somewhat reluctantly 
given. They reject the orthodox explanation of his uniqueness or divinity, yet they 
hold to his uniqueness without apparently feeling under obligation to give another 
and better explanation. They exalt Jesus beyond the confines and experiences of 
humanity as humanity is regularly considered, while they expect their readers never- 
theless to consider Jesus as being wholly and only within the human category. An 
explanation of some kind is called for. The real heresy (if the unfortunate word may be 
permitted) is not that view which rejects the orthodox or any other explanation of the 
uniqueness of Jesus, but the view which holds to the uniqueness of Jesus and yet says 
that no special explanation of it is necessary. Bousset however makes some very 
helpful suggestions in “The Significance of the Personality of Jesus for Belief,” Pro- 
ceedings of Fifth International Congress of Free Christianity, 1910, p. 208. 


t Case, The Historicity of Jesus, p. 272. 
450 


THE CHRISTOLOGY OF THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS 125 


certain men changed the meaning and content of the word ‘“‘tyrant”’ for 
the worse. Jesus eliminated the political element so prominent in the 
Jewish thought of his day (Mark 11:10; Acts 1:6, etc.; cf. the Zealot 
movement). Yet the Kingdom was with him no organization, at least 
in any formal sense. It was simply the company of those who with 
faith in God lived or sought to live the life of purity, simplicity, honesty, 
freedom, humility, service, and love, such as was pleasing to God and 
necessary to communion with the father—such as he himself enjoyed. 
To be sure, this new life was something more radical and intense than 
the mere stringing together of the foregoing words indicates. It might 
be described as a new birth, but Jesus had no technical or doctrinal 
name for it. Faith in the Father whom Jesus revealed, so to speak, 
released an inner spring which gave the impulse to return to God like 
the Prodigal in penitence, prayer, and devotion to God’s will as supreme. 
Forgiveness, freedom from care and sorrow, confidence in the goodness 
and care of God, mingled with an element of fear, and hope for the 
future, follow. Men thus living together in love to God and their fel- 
lows form the heart and substance of the Kingdom of God in Jesus’ 
conception of it. 

Thus it may be said that in substance, even if not in expression and 
form, the Kingdom of God in Jesus’ conception is something present, 
as some of his parables teach (Mark 4:30-32= Matt. 13:31 f.=Luke 
13:18-21). The little company of the disciples was the beginning of the 
Kingdom (Mark 10:42 ||). But this is not all. Jesus realized, per- 
haps increasingly, that there was what he conceived to be a kingdom 
of this world, a kingdom of Satan over against the Kingdom of God 
(Mark 1:12, 13 ||). In the healing of men, in the casting out of demons 
(Matt. 12:28), in the work both of himself and his disciples, he saw 
the Kingdom of God coming (Luke 10:18; Mark 3:23). He evi- 
dently felt that by more enthusiastic effort on both his own part and 
that of his disciples he could hasten the coming of the Kingdom (Mark 
1:35-39).t But he felt that the Kingdom was not fully come (Matt. 
6:10=Luke 11:2), yea, that it could not fully come except by a world- 
catastrophe which was at the same time an act of God and a judgment of 
God which would set the seal upon his work and give him the supreme 
place in the Kingdom (Mark 10:35 f. ||). Jesus also felt his death as in 
some sense a necessary service for this coming of the Kingdom (Mark 
8:27 f.). In all this Jesus shared the national and apocalyptic ideas of 
his time. Doubtless this element has been exaggerated by his reporters. 

1 Scott, The Kingdom and the Messiah, p. 134. 

451 


120 HISTORICAL AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES 


They put undue emphasis upon that which to them was supreme (Acts 
1:6 f.). How much of this apocalyptic element Jesus himself shared no 
one can say precisely, but that he shared some of the eschatological 
views cannot successfully be denied, though he was very sober and 
restrained (Mark 13:32; Acts 1:6). Technically Jesus was not an 
apocalyptist, though he shared some of the apocalyptical views of his 
day.t If apocalyptic ideas had not been ready to hand, Jesus’ con- 
sciousness and knowledge of God as Father, as good and holy, the 
enthusiasm of his life with God must have developed some other con- 
ception of the future final victory of God and righteousness. Jesus did 
not have the view of a world developing according to the modern scientific 
evolutionary conception. He could conceive of the consummation of the 
Kingdom only in the form of a personal victory of God and his Kingdom 
over Satan and his Kingdom. This must take some time; it must 
depend upon the will of God and upon the act of God. Hence Jesus’ use 
of apocalyptic views. But they do not express the heart of his thought 
and message. 

But Jesus felt himself called to be the chief instrument in God’s 
hand of bringing in the Kingdom of God. No doubt the acceptance of 
this official duty of Messiahship sprang from Jesus’ own deep and 
distinctive religious life in relation to the Father, and his conception of 
the messianic function was assimilated in large measure to his conception 
of life in communion and harmony with God and in earnest and aggres- 
sive fulfilment of his will. He poured into the title a new meaning 
distilled from the depths of his own deep religious experience of God and 
life. Most probably he felt the messianic call in the Baptism experience. 
If so, it was rooted in his sense of filial sonship which was also personal, 
ethical, religious.2 The fact that the current messianic doctrine was not 
in harmony with this deep sense of sonship compelled Jesus to withhold 
the idea that he was the Messiah. When he claimed to be the Messiah, 
he wished the claim to be based, not on signs or on outward display, 
but upon inward merit and reality. Hence he did not proclaim himself 
Messiah, but expected his disciples and the people to discover it for 
themselves (Mark 8:27 ||; Matt. 11:4=Luke 7:22). He in a large 
measure spiritualized the concept of the Messiah as he did that of the 
Law and the Kingdom. 


t Weinel, op. cit., sec. 8. 

2 Cf. Luke 3:22, cod. D, “Thou art my son, today have I begotten thee,” which 
reading may have been taken from Q by Luke; Wellhausen, Einleitung, S. 74; Harnack, 
Spriiche und Reden Jesu, S. 136, 218 f. 

452 


THE CHRISTOLOGY OF THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS 127 


There is much uncertainty about the significance of the term Son of 
Man in Jesus’ thought and usage, and the uncertainty seems to be 
increasing rather than diminishing. What was the origin and significance 
of the term?! Did Jesus use the term of himself, and if so to what 
extent and with what meaning? Was the term a current one for the 
Messiah in Jesus’ day and if so, how could he use it of himself and keep 
his Messiahship secret till toward the close of his ministry? Difficulty 
and some uncertainty hover about the answers to these questions. It 
seems clear that in apocalyptic circles of Jesus’ day the phrase “Son 
of Man” was used of the Messiah. In fact it gives to ὃ χριστός its 
particular New Testament content.? It is to be noted however that there 
is considerable variation in the form of the title indicating in all 
probability a lack of definiteness and fixedness in its meaning.’ All 
things considered, it is entirely probable that Jesus used the term, though 
to what extent and with what significance it is difficult to say. A study 
of the passages in which the term occurs reveals two distinct classes, the 
one speaking of the Son of Man as lowly, destitute, suffering, a self-title 
of Jesus; the other, as exalted, coming upon the clouds of glory, like the 
Son of Man of apocalyptic. Weinel4 holds that in this clear distinction 
there lies at once the main problem in connection with the title “Son of 
Man” and the solution of it. Only the latter, the eschatological 
passages, are really genuine, for only Jesus could say, “The Son of 
Man will come.” Others would say, if the title denoted Jesus, ‘‘The 
Son of Man will come again.”’ But though Jesus spoke of the Son of 
Man as another person, he himself considered himself the Son of Man, 
and so his reporters were not substantially wrong in giving him the title 
in the other group of passages.5 Weinel rejects the idea that Jesus may 
have used the term just because it was many-sided and somewhat 
enigmatic. Someone would surely have asked its significance, as the 
Fourth Gospel represents the Jews doing later.6 Is this argument not 

τ Babylonian, say Hommel (Expository Times, XI, 341 i.) and Zimmern (Archiv 
fiir Religionswiss., II, 165, 1899), connecting it with the Adapa-Marduk myth; cf. also 


W. B. Kristensen, Theologisch Tijdschrift, 1911, De Term, ‘‘Zoon des Menschen,” 8. 
1-38; Εἰ P. Badham, ibid., The title ‘‘Son of Man,” S. 395-448. 

2 Book of Enoch, 36:1 ff.; 46:1 ff.; 48a:2,11; 48b:2 et passim; cf. Volz, Jiidische 
Eschatologie, S. 214. 

3 Volz, op. cit., S. 214: “Der Wechsel im Ausdruck zeigt aber, dass der Terminus 
noch nicht fixiert war.” 

4 Bib. Theol. d. N.T., S. 199. 

5 Weinel, Bib. Theol. d. N.T., sec. 34, “Der Menschensohn.”’ 

6 John 12:34: Who is this Son of Man? 

453 


128 HISTORICAL AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES 


too hypothetical and, so to speak, too clear-cut? There were various 
forms of the messianic hope current in Jesus’ day in different circles. 
There was the narrow conception of the Zealots; there was the some- 
what wider national hope which thought of the Messiah as Son of David 
(Luke 20:41); there was the wider apocalyptic conception of the Son 
of Man, current possibly only in comparatively limited circles; and there 
were various shades between.t Among the people with whom Jesus 
worked, and even with his disciples, Jesus might conceivably have 
occasionally used the title Son of Man, with more or less distinct reference 
to himself, even before he openly declared himself to them as the 
Messiah. But the element of uncertainty increases here. It is clear 
however that for some special reason Jesus preferred the title Son of 
Man rather than Son of David or Son of God, and that he used it at 
first possibly with latent but finally with open reference to himself. 
The same holds true substantially of the title “Messiah.” That which 
impelled him to use these titles was his profound sense of Sonship. The 
titles formed the mold, the sense of Sonship gave to them their essential 
content. 

Though very restrained in depicting the future, Jesus evidently 
expected (in spite of death, which he felt to be in some sense a means to 
an end) the overthrow of the kingdom of Satan, the establishment of the 
Kingdom of God some time in the near but unknown future, by some sort 
of special intervention of God himself. Possibly he felt assured of his 
own restoration, in spite of death, and so spoke of it to his disciples that 
on looking back they were satisfied that he had been speaking to them of 
his resurrection. With the consummation of the Kingdom of God, Jesus 
associated judgment, probably with himself as judge under God. Prob- 
ably too he expected a general resurrection of some sort (Mark 10:40; 
Matt. 8:11, 12=Luke 13:28 f.). 

Secondary then in Jesus’ estimate of himself, but genuine, is his 
conception of himself as Messiah, of the future consummation of the 
Kingdom accompanied by resurrection and judgment and the over- 
throw of Satan and his kingdom; primary, is his profound consciousness 
of God and life with God begetting within him the conviction that 
salvation (though he does not use the term) consisted in or perhaps 
rather issued from this knowledge of God and life with God, and that he 
not only in his example and his teaching but in some way in his person 
mediated this knowledge of God and salvation which was something such 

τ Heitmiiller, art. ‘Jesus Christus,” II, 5b, Die Religion in Geschichte und Gegen- 


wart, Bd. III. 
454 


THE CHRISTOLOGY OF THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS 129 


as not even the prophets had known, something new in the world (Matt. 
10:37=Luke 14:26; Matt. 8:21=Luke 9:60; Matt. 13:17=Luke 
10:23; Matt. 11:27 f.). This does not necessarily mean that Jesus 
required that men should believe in him for this salvation, as the Fourth 
Gospel represents, though this would seem to be a very natural and 
easy advance to make. It means only that Jesus in his own thought 
felt himself to be in some sense a mediator, yes, the (Matt. 11:27 f.) 
mediator in actual fact between God and men. In the last analysis, 
however, the difference on this point between the synoptic and the 
Johannine representation is more one of form than one of substance. In 
Johannine terminology the synoptic Jesus felt himself to be the revelation 
of God and the “way” to God. 


3. PRIMITIVE CHRISTIAN CHRISTOLOGY 


From this tentative statement of Jesus’ self-estimate we pass to the 
earliest Christian views of Jesus, the earliest Christian Christology. It 
has been commonly felt that from the time of their conviction of Jesus’ 
resurrection the first Christians began forthwith to depart from Jesus’ 
conception of himself. They began to lay the emphasis upon the 
secondary elements above mentioned and not upon the primary elements. 
This is true only ina measure. They laid emphasis on both primary and 
secondary elements in different degrees and at different times and places. 

Beyond reasonable doubt the earliest form of Christology was that 
Jesus was the Messiah. During Jesus’ life some at least believed, 
perhaps rather hoped, that he would prove to be the Messiah and would 
declare himself as such. But it was only their faith in the Resurrection 
of Jesus in which God declared him the Messiah and Son of God with 
power (Acts 2:36; Rom. 1:4) that crystallized this hope into an undying 
conviction. The early chapters of Acts (chaps. 1-12) represent this 
earliest Christology for which the Resurrection is decisive and pivotal. 
It is clearly adoptive. God wrought through Jesus, and because of his 
approval of him accepted and declared him Messiah and Lord by the 
resurrection (Acts 2:22f.; 5:42). God glorified and exalted him 
(Acts 5:30f.). God would send him again at the end of all things 
(Acts 3:20, 21). These experiences and hopes established a new and 
peculiar kind of life (Acts 5:20) initiated by repentance, faith in Jesus 
as Messiah, and baptism in his name (Acts 2:38; 8:16), and character- 
ized by forgiveness of sins through Christ (Acts 3:26) and the gift of the 
Holy Spirit in his name (Acts 5:32). This was at least one if not the 
only form of the earliest Christology. 

455 


130 HISTORICAL AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES 


But, as already noted, these conceptions of Jesus immediately con- 
sequent upon his resurrection were not really the first beginnings of 
Christology, though very naturally they appeared to many to be so then 
and still appear to many to be so, owing to the overshadowing importance 
of the Resurrection. Unless violence is applied to the sources, it is clear 
that sometime before his death Jesus was regarded by some as prophet, 
by some as Messiah, whether as Son of David or as Son of Man or as 
Son of God. From both sources, Mark and the Sayings of Jesus, it is 
clear that the disciples and the very earliest tradition well remembered 
the discussions about the Messiahship and the strange experiences and 
high claims of Jesus in this regard, especially toward the close of his 
ministry. How did they relate this to their idea that the resurrection 
constituted Jesus the Messiah? They simply carried the adoptive 
theory of the Messiahship back into the history of the ministry of Jesus. 
Along one line they attached it to the experience upon the Mount of 
Transfiguration (Mark 9:7 ||), but with more assurance they attached 
the idea of adoption as Messiah and Son to the Baptism experience 
(Mark 1:11 ||) in which Jesus, according to the early Christian view, 
received the gift of the Spirit which constituted him Son.t_ The tes- 
timony of the sources that Jesus used the title Son of Man with either 
open or latent reference to himself seems at first to tell against the idea 
that the earliest Christians carried back the adoptive idea to the Baptism 
experience. But apart from the possibility of Weinel’s explanation,” the 
phrase ‘‘Son of Man” with its accompanying idea of pre-existence was 
too limited and too indefinite to hinder the employment of the adoptive 
idea to explain the experiences and words of Jesus which the disciples 
and earliest Christians very well remembered. Possibly the adoptive 
idea, which was truly Semitic, vied for some time with its later rival, the 
“Son of Man” or pre-existence idea, which was in part Greek or at least 
Hellenistic as well as Jewish. 


* Possibly the true text of Luke 3:22 is that of codex Ὁ: ‘‘Thou art my son: 
today have I begotten thee,” thus meeting the word of Ps. 2:7 with the occasion of 
the Baptism. Cf. Gospel to the Hebrews in description of the Baptism: “‘My Son, in 
all the prophets I waited for you till you should come and I should find rest in you. 
For you are my rest, you are my firstborn son who rulest forever.” Again, inter- 
preting the Baptism as the occasion of the adoption to Messiahship and Sonship 
explains the otherwise extremely puzzling aorist, εὐδόκησα (Mk. 1:11), in a perfectly 
natural way, as an inceptive aorist. 


2 Bib. Theol. d. N. Test., 5. 198. 


456 


THE CHRISTOLOGY OF THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS 131 


4. THE CHRISTOLOGY OF PAUL 

At this stage the development of christological thought is taken up 
and carried on by Paul. For Paul too with the Christian community, 
the Resurrection means that Jesus is Messiah and Son of God (Phil. 
2:9-11). Probably in this passage as in Rom. 1:4 there is a trace, a 
remnant of the adoptive idea of the earliest Christian community. But 
in reality Paul had discarded the adoptive idea probably as too super- 
ficial and not at all adequate to the proper expression of his profound 
experience of, and thought upon, the risen and glorified Christ. Paul 
used rather the category of pre-existence and the idea of Son of Man 
as the better expression of the Messiahship and Sonship of Jesus. Paul 
chose and elaborated this form because it was natural to him. He 
belonged to the educated Jewish and Hellenistic circles where the Son 
of Man concept which he transferred to Jesus as Messiah was familiar. 
Yet, as Paul does not wholly give up the idea of God’s favoritism for 
Israel as a nation (Rom. 11:25, 26), so naturally he holds to the Son of 
David idea of Jesus as Messiah. But this is merely according to the 
flesh, and Paul lays little stress upon this. With Paul there begins an 
elaborate development of the higher category. For the expression of his 
experience of Jesus and salvation in him Paul lays hold of elements from 
various Hellenistic thought-circles of his day including the mystery- 
religions. On the basis of his personal experience, aided by thoughts of 
the Hebrew prophets as well as of the mystery-religions, Paul develops 
the original doctrine of mystical union with Christ by faith. By the 
death of Christ through faith, deliverance from the curse of the law, 
forgiveness, new life, new power, new hope for the coming age, and 
union with Christ—all which with many added elements constitute 
salvation—are secured. Of Paul, though in a lesser degree, it may be 
said as it was said of Jesus that soteriology not Christology is his main 
concern. 

But Paul has also an elaborate Christology. The term “Son of 
Man” falls away and in its place comes the idea of the heavenly man, 
the second Adam, probably very closely related to the Son of Man idea. 
Jesus is identified with this pre-existent heavenly man, the second 
Adam. But this heavenly man is also Son of God. Paul nowhere 
reveals just in what sense he considers Jesus Son of God. Rom. 1:4 
may very plausibly be interpreted so that Jesus is constituted “‘Son”’ by 
the Resurrection. But this adoptive idea can hardly express Paul’s full 
thought. He considers Jesus a spirit-being (I Cor. 15:45; II Cor. 3:17), 
the firstborn of all creation (Col. 1:14 f.), who for a time dwelt upon the 

457 


132 HISTORICAL AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES 


earth (II Cor. 8:9) and was restored to greater glory than before (Phil. 
2:6 f.). This spirit-being was Son of God, but in what sense? The 
Hebrew feeling of Sonship through sympathy, likeness, love is not 
excluded (Col. 1:13), but probably Paul thought, if he thought upon 
it specially, of Sonship in some of the Greek forms. It is clear that the 
Logos-doctrine is present in Paul, latent though not expressed? (I Cor. 
8:6; 11:3). Christ is the creator and bond of the cosmos (Col. 1:16). 
He is the image of God (II Cor. 4:4). A certain degree of figurative, 
spiritual, and ethical meaning must not be denied to these and similar 
terms. But they clearly have a metaphysical force, and it is likely that 
Paul conceived of Christ as a second God somewhat after the fashion of 
Philo, with probably additional touches from the atmosphere and thought 
of the mystery-religions and of Stoicism. Paul also identified the 
heavenly Christ with the Spirit (II Cor. 3:7).?_ It is impossible here to go 
into the question of the relation of Paul and the New Testament as a 
whole to the Hellenistic syncretism of the mystery-religions of his day. 
How much of what has hitherto been placed genetically in direct rela- 
tion either (1) to the historical Jesus, (2) to the Old Testament, or (3) 
to Alexandrianism must rather be related directly to the religious 
Hellenistic syncretism of the mystery-religions and considered rather as 
a parallel to Old Testament thought? In 1903 Heinrich Zimmern, 
after outlining the questions, says that investigation into this problem 
is as yet in its early stages and no definite answer can be givens His 
statement will still hold, though much advance since then has been 
made, with the result that there is a strong tendency to affirm that 
much of New Testament thought of the person of Jesus is due to the 
fact that the first interpreters of Jesus in their effort to set forth from 
their experience his supreme significance, used the terms and thought- 
forms current in the atmosphere and religious thought of their day.4 
t Weinel, op. cit., S. 368a. 2 Reitzenstein, Poimandres, S. 30. 


3Zimmern, Keilinschriften und Bibel: “Eine definitive Antwort lasst sich bis 
jetzt noch auf keine dieser die schwierigsten Probleme der orientalischen Religions- 
geschichte beriihrenden fragen geben .. . . von einer endgiiltigen Lésung dieser 
Probleme noch keine Rede sein kann, die Erérterung iiber sie vielmehr noch in den 
ersten Anfingen steht.” 


4Cf. also Zimmern, Keilinschriften und das Alte Testament,s S. 372-94, and 
the whole chapter “Der Christus, Jesus” in his Kezlinschriften und Bibel, The whole 
subject is receiving intense attention at present, but there is no justification for 
the extreme position taken by Drews as a result of it that there was no historical 
Jesus. This is a wholly unwarranted interpretation of the facts which rather go to 
show simply that to a greater degree than has been hitherto supposed the formal, 
doctrinal, ritual, largely external portion of Christianity was a part of the religious 
milieu of the time and indeed in a large measure grew out of it. 


458 


THE CHRISTOLOGY OF THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS 133 


Presumably these elements from the mystery-religions, whether Graeco- 
Persian or Graeco-Egyptian, were mediated to Paul by the popular 
eclectic philosophy of the day. They are in all probability the following: 
(1) the idea of Jesus’ pre-existence as the heavenly man, the second 
Adam, a divine spirit-being who was also Creator of the world, Son of 
God and heavenly man; cf. Adapa-Marduk, son of Ea, and world- 
creator; (2) the idea of Jesus as sent into the world by God appearing as 
Savior and destined to be the inaugurator of the new era (Gal. 4:4); cf. 
Mithra’s réle in the Persian cult; (3) the idea of the temporary humilia- 
tion and suffering of Christ; cf. Osiris in the Egyptian cult and the star- 
deities, Sin, Samas, and [star in the Babylonian cult; (4) the idea of the 
Resurrection and exaltation and coming again of Christ; (5) the idea of 
two opposing worlds with the thought that Christ shall reign till he shall 
conquer all enemies, even death." 

Paul laid great emphasis upon eschatology, especially in the earlier 
part of his life and work. As soon as he accepted the historical Jesus as 
the Messiah he assigned to him the réle of the Jewish Messiah whom he 
already had in mind. The period of the earthly life of Jesus was a 
temporary and preparatory period of humiliation and suffering. But 
Jesus would come again and fulfil the eschatological réle of the Jewish 
Messiah. With the coming of Christ the dead would be raised (II 
Thess. 2:1-12 if Pauline; I Cor., chap. 15), the living would be changed 
or transformed, the judgment-seat of Christ would be set (I Thess. 
2:19, 20; II Cor. 5:10; 11:15), all enemies and evil, including death, 
would be overcome, ending in the final consummation of the messianic 
Kingdom and the surrender by Christ of his high prerogative as mediator 
and vicegerent, so that God might be immediate ruler and “all in all’ 
(I Cor. 15:24-28). Eschatology is prominent in Paul. It is urged as 
an impulse to worthy practical Christian living (I Cor. 15:58) and as 
the consummation of salvation and life (Rom. 13:11). 


5. DIVERGENT MOVEMENTS AFTER PAUL 


But this highly developed christological doctrine of Paul, with its 
accompanying elaborate theology and profound mysticism and scant 
emphasis upon the earthly life of Jesus, was not wholly satisfactory to 
the primitive Christian church. In substance Paul’s view of Jesus as the 
Messiah, Son of Man, Son of God, a divine, pre-existent spirit-being, 
whose earthly life was a short period of humiliation and veiled glory and 


«Cf. H. A. A. Kennedy, St. Paul and the Mystery-Religions (1913). 
459 


184 HISTORICAL AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES 


power, was accepted by the primitive church, but various and consider- 
able modifications were made in different directions. 

It was a striking conviction, gained after much anguish and struggle 
of mind and soul, that the one who appeared to Paul on the way to 
Damascus was none other than Jesus of Nazareth, risen and living, and 
that he was the Messiah. The result was that Paul applied to the 
historical Jesus many concepts which were proper and becoming only to 
an abstract figure of the religious and philosophical imagination—ideas 
whose Heimat was the world of the eternal and invisible. The tendency 
of the Pauline Christology was to lose the historical figure of Jesus in the 
drapings of religious and philosophical ideas. This tendency is easily 
discoverable in Paul himself on comparing his earliest with his latest 
works (I Thess. vs. Col.). In it there lay the subtle danger of the 
so-called “entangling alliance” of history on the one hand, and religion 
and philosophy on the other, an alliance which apparently defies dis- 
entangling. The natural result was divergent movements, one radical, 
leading to a still greater emphasis of the eternal, a second apocalyptic, 
and a third reactionary, emphasizing history. 

a) The reactionary movement.—The reactionary movement was 
probably first in time after Paul. Men, some of them Paul’s associates 
in his work, none of them associates of Jesus, accepted indeed the Pauline 
identification of the Messiah, Son of Man and Logos with Jesus of 
Nazareth, but felt that Paul made too meager a use of the detailed 
information of the words and deeds of Jesus preserved in the tradition 
of the early community and in part written down in various fragmen- 
tary documents. This information was needed especially for the gentile 
mission. Thus we find the synoptists, Matthew, Mark, and Luke, 
counteracting or perhaps complementing the christological doctrine of 
Paul. In the main they accept the Pauline doctrine, but they add the 
outlines of the actual historical figure adapted to be sure in many 
respects to the later doctrine. 

The Gospel of Mark (65-70 a.p.), the oldest of our present Gospels 
at least, is interested chiefly—almost solely—in the public activity and 
ministry of Jesus, his healing and miracle-working power, and but 
slightly in his teaching. Mark considered Jesus the Son of God, but 
like Paul, does not reveal how or in what sense. His quoting of the 
remark of the centurion at the cross (Mark 15:39) probably indicates 
Greek leanings, and it is likely that Mark with Paul considered Jesus as 
essentially a divine spirit-being who became man, though he does not 
say how. His Sonship was latent, recognized with difficulty (Mark 

460 


THE CHRISTOLOGY OF THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS 135 


15:39) or only by the demons (3:11; 5:7), aS was also his Messiahship 
(8:29). Mark considers Jesus also as the heavenly man and with the 
idea retains no doubt rightly the phrase “Son of Man,” which Paul 
dropped. Mark gives a vivid picture also, as he intended to do, of the 
humanity of Jesus, a picture clearer and stronger than that of any 
Gather Gospel (1:41; 2:8; 3:5; 4238; 8:5; 10:14; 10:17, 40). He 
gives the most satisfactory outline of the main events and developments 
of his ministry. 

The question as to how much in this Gospel (as in the others) belongs 
to Mark himself and the primitive Christian community will vary from 
less to more according to the evidence of historical criticism and each 
man’s tendency or inclination. It may be that the demands of a high 
Christology caused the Christian community and Mark with them to 
push back into the life and work of Jesus much more than has yet been 
recognized. After outlining Mark’s testimony to the amazing dulness 
and stupidity of the disciples Case maintains that this dulness serves as 
a means for carrying back later thought. But whatever the extent of 
this pushing back of thoughts and practices of a later time into the life 
of Jesus may prove to be, it need not, and cannot, as Case splendidly 
shows, annul the historicity of Jesus, diminish the uniqueness and power 
of his personal religious life with God, invalidate the resurrection appear- 
ances, or destroy the experience of salvation in some sense through 
Jesus which is after all the fundamental fact in and impulse toward the 
development of any Christology. 

It is clear, then, that Mark has a high Christology, Pauline in its 
main lines, to which he adds a vivid picture of the human side of Jesus, 
of his prophetic activity as preacher of repentance, herald of the Kingdom 
of God, and worker of miracles as well as teacher—a picture which 
shows indications of being unconsciously molded and changed to a 
greater or less degree, both by the adoption Christology of the early 
Christians and by the higher Christology of Paul. 

Matthew and Luke naturally manifest a still greater degree of 
change of the early tradition, of the life, activity, and teaching of Jesus. 
Their common non-Markan source or sources represents Jesus consist- 

t The Historicity of Jesus, 1912, p. 226: “In all this Mark is clearly recognizing 
that Jesus made no such impression upon his contemporaries as his later interpreters 
thought he ought to have produced, and as they would have him produce on the 
minds of believers in their day. But by making the blindness of Jesus’ associates 
responsible for this failure, the early theologians could still think of him as displaying 
unique power commensurate with their faith in him as the heavenly Lord, and at the 


same time they could harmonize the history with their Christology.” 
461 


136 HISTORICAL AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES 


ently, however, as the great prophetic teacher, rather than divine healer 
and miracle worker. As this source (or sources) of the teachings of 
Jesus is generally considered to be somewhat earlier than Mark and 
largely free from the tendency to miracle and Christology, it leads many 
to think that Mark as well as the later writers have very materially 
altered the original representation of Jesus. It must be remembered, 
however, that it was the custom of the time to distinguish to a greater 
or less degree between the deeds and the words of a teacher (Acts 1:1). 
The need for the teaching was naturally felt first and strongest. 

The most striking addition of Matthew and Luke to christological 
doctrine is found in the story of the miraculous conception as displayed 
in their infancy narratives. Unless the story here given is considered 
as fact in some way hidden from Paul and Mark, it requires considerable 
time for its development and indicates a late date, say, toward the end 
of the first century and a decisive advance upon the Christology of Paul 
and Mark. It is conceived as an explanation of the uniqueness and 
greatness of Jesus and of the modus operandi of his Sonship. It is a 
composite, a blend in all probability of Old Testament ideas, the 
adoption-Christology of the primitive community, and the conceptions 
of the various mystery-religions with added Greek elements.t The 
thought itself is probably Greek, but the prominence of the Holy Spirit 
as well as the general context indicates a strong Semitic element. In 
fact it is probably in a measure a further pushing back of the idea of 
adoption as it is found in the Baptism experience in which the Holy 
Spirit plays a quite similar réle. The Greek element appears distinctly, 
however, in that the story explains the Sonship as metaphysical, that is, 
essential. Paul and Mark had felt no need of such an explanation. In 
fact, such an explanation seems out of harmony with the idea of pre- 
existence, about which Matthew and Luke say nothing. In many other 
respects Matthew tends to a heightened Christology (Matt. 8:8, 16; 
12:28; 21:20).3 With Paul he emphasized the eschatological element 
and specifically the death of Christ as necessary in the divine plan 
(16:21, 23) as redemptive (26:28) and ratifying a new covenant (20: 28; 
26:28). 

tGranbery, Outline of New Testament Christology, p. 57 and ἢ. 1; Petersen, 
Wunderbare Geburt des Heilandes, Kap. 3, ‘‘ Die iibernatiirliche Geburt Jesu im Lichte 
der Religionsgeschichte.”’ 

37. Weiss, Christus, S. 81; cf. Inscription at Priene, quoted by Pfleiderer in 
Monist, XIV, 5s. 

3 Allen, Commentary on Matthew, pp. xxxi-xxxiii; cf. also his summary of the 


Christology, p. xvi. 
462 


THE CHRISTOLOGY OF THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS 137 


Luke does not so fully reveal his personal christological standpoint. 
It is however strongly Pauline, charged with the universal gentile spirit, 
and emphasizes strongly the human element in Jesus in addition to the 
Pauline lines. 

But the synoptists were not the only reactionaries against the 
Pauline extreme which discounted the earthly life and teaching of Jesus. 
The great majority of Christians, even the personal disciples of Jesus, 
were not so original, independent, and creative as Paul. They therefore 
fell back on Jesus’ specific deeds and words. A spiritual bond, like a 
great cable reaching into the unseen, held Paul true to Jesus in the 
main, though not in detail, in spirit, though not in form. Paul felt the 
fullest freedom in beating out his own views of truth, centering them all 
about the Incarnation and the cross of Christ as the great redemptive 
triumph for the world. Very largely he formed his own molds with 
material gathered from every quarter, but he filled them with the spirit 
of the gospel of Jesus. It will be found that essentially Paul represented 
and developed the message of his master Jesus.! 

But less independent and original spirits could not have broken this 
new way, and indeed could not even follow Paul’s lead without greater 
support from Jesus himself. Hence our Synoptic Gospels. But even 
where the writing did not take the new form of a Gospel, the reaction 
toward more support from Jesus himself is seen. Two such writings are 
the Epistle of I Peter and the Epistle to the Hebrews. These two 
writings are in some way closely related.2, They probably spring from 
the same general situation and atmosphere and express an unconscious 
reaction against the mystical depth of Paulinism and its disregard of the 
experiences of the earthly Jesus. They both make much of the experi- 
ence of suffering; they are both rather practical than profound or 
mystical; they both exhort after the fashion of a homily; they both 
emphasize the death of Christ as propitiatory in a similar way; they 
make much of hope, of the future glory of Christ and Christians, of the 
inspiration of the prophets, of the reproach and sufferings of the pre- 
existent Christ (I Pet. 1:11; cf. Heb. 11:26). The Epistle to the 
Hebrews, however, makes larger use of the experiences of Jesus’ earthly 
life than does I Peter. It makes an astonishingly close approach to the 
modern psychological developmental view of the reflex action of suffering 
upon character, both for Christ (Heb. 5:7—-10) and for Christians (12:7). 


tA. Meyer, Jesus or Paul, p. 106. 
?Holtzmann, Handcommentar zum N. T., Ill, “Der Brief an die Hebrier,”’ 
Einleitung, IT, 3. 
463 


138 HISTORICAL AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES 


Unlike Paul, Hebrews deliberately states that the salvation which it 
proclaims was first proclaimed by Jesus when on earth (2:3), and was 
delivered by faithful witnesses (2:3). Paul would not make such 
connections. Paul claims indeed the identity of inner personality 
between the exalted Christ and the earthly Jesus, but he is not con- 
cerned to make such detailed connection. The writer to the Hebrews 
follows the same main christological lines as Paul—pre-existence, 
incarnation, redemptive death, resurrection, and exaltation. He has 
the main eschatological lines also, though with less emphasis and promi- 
nence, viz., parousia, judgment, transformation of the world, yet 
in a way different from that of Paul (Heb. 12:27, 28). The writer 
develops the idea of the sacrifice and High-Priesthood of Jesus in detail 
as Paul does not do. 

b) The apocalyptic movement.—Another divergent tendency of a more 
radical type may be noted in writings belonging to this same period, viz., 
ca. 90 A.D. This tendency may be called apocalyptic. Apocalyptic 
views were common property at this period. Paul shared them very 
strongly, especially at the beginning of his Christian career, though there 
is evidence of a loss of interest and emphasis toward the end. Jesus the 
Messiah had suffered death, but he would come again to fulfil those 
expectations of glory and triumph which they had in their shortsighted- 
ness expected of him at his first coming. So the early Christians 
reasoned. Thus apocalyptic could still breathe the breath of life. Its 
activity was increased also by persecutions. Now Paul did not paint 
the glories of the future triumph of Christ and Christians with sufficient 
color or in sufficient detail. He was too moderate, too severely ethical, 
perhaps, and mystical. Hence such a writing as the Apocalypse of John, 
the only representative of its type in the Canon of the New Testament, 
but a writing which probably represents the views of a fairly large 
number of Christians at this time. Its Christology is clearly post- 
Pauline. “The dignity, glory, and authority of Christ and the greatness 
of his redeeming work are set forth in exalted terms and the strongest 
imagery is employed (1:5). He is a priest (1:13), is Lord of the church 
(1:12-16), is pre-existent and eternal, and determines who shall enter 
and who be released from the realms of the dead (1:8, 17, 18; 21:6; 
22:13), is King of kings and Lord of lords (17:14; 19:16), is the bright, 
the morning star that will rise upon the world to usher in the consumma- 
tion:.(295 D6) τ π-Ὃ. Given titles that belong to God, and worshiped 
by men and angels, Christ reigns not only during the earthly millennium, 

t Granbery, Outline of New Testament Christology, pp. 87-91. 

464 


THE CHRISTOLOGY OF THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS 139 


but sits with God in the final consummation.’* The apocalyptic 
tendency toward external glory and imagery has carried the writer 
even beyond the Christology of Paul. Christ is closely associated with 
God (19:11-16; 21:22; 22:1, 3). 

c) The radical movement.—But the climax of christological develop- 
ment within the New Testament is found in the Johannine writings, 
particularly the Fourth Gospel and the First Epistle. For some years 
the Fourth Gospel has been'closely studied. It is still in many respects 
an enigma and may always be. But certain main lines in connection 
with it are standing out more clearly as a result of the work. From 
the religio-historical point of view, if not from the literary point of 
view, it is a unit. The historical element in it is quite subsidiary, 
though not without some value even in the strictly historical sense; 
it is selected and used for the purpose of a religious and theological 
interpretation of Jesus. The Gospel is partly apologetic and polemic.? 
It manifests the greatest influence by and the closest approach to 
the mystery-religions so prevalent at the end of the first century 
A.D. 

In fact, as Christianity on its mission to the gentiles moved out into 
the religious and philosophical milieu of the Graeco-Roman world, it 
found itself confronted everywhere with conceptions of great worth and 
vitality—conceptions of human need, human helplessness and sinfulness, 
conceptions of divine helpfulness, mercy, and salvation, of divine Saviors, 
of divine revelations, and of life, light, truth, resurrection, immortality, 
and future blessedness through association and union of God and man. 
These were abstract conceptions, to be sure, and therein lay their 
weakness and their danger. Gnosticism is the term applied to the sum- 
total of these conceptions. But strictly speaking these are the concep- 
tions of the mystery-religions. Gnosticism is the term to describe 
them after they have passed through the alembic of Christianity. 
Now the writer of the Fourth Gospel confronted this religious and 
philosophical thought-world of the mystery-religions. It is not im- 
possible to suppose that he was himself a convert to Christianity 
from this thought-world of the mystery-religions. In any case he 
sympathizes with much that they contain. He realizes that if Chris- 
tianity is to hold its own and win the day it must absorb their vital 
elements and express itself in terms of their conceptions. He is perfectly 
confident that Christianity is the supreme religion, and he sets himself 
to the task of presenting it as such. 


1 Granbery, op. cil., p. 91. 2K. F. Scott, The Fourth Gospel?, chap. iii. 
465 


140 HISTORICAL AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES 


Only a brief outline of his christological attitude can be given and 
comparison drawn between him and other New Testament writers. 
The Fourth Gospel uses the titles “Christ” or “ Messiah” (1:17; 1:20, 
26: 3:28: 10:24, etc.), “Son of. Man” (1:51; 3:13, 14; 6:27, eae 
“King, of Israel” (1:49), and “Lord” (1:23; 6:23; 12:2, ete; yeu 
they have all lost their primitive Semitic meaning and have become 
more or less technical and conventional. The term ‘Lamb of God” is 
important for the Fourth Gospel, as it indicates the writer’s firm faith 
in the redemptive sacrificial death of Jesus. A still more striking term 
however is “‘Logos,’’ so prominent in the Prologue. Though the term 
does not occur elsewhere in the Gospel, the doctrine is assumed through- 
out. Jesus was the Logos in the beginning, but the characteristic 
thought of the writer is that the Logos became flesh and thus revealed 
God in the form of man. In this respect the Fourth Gospel fully de- 
veloped that idea which, though plainly present, was nevertheless some- 
what latent in Paul and Hebrews. The writer of the Fourth Gospel is 
generally credited with taking the term from Philo, but it is more likely 
that it came from semi-popular usage. At any rate, as compared with 
Philo’s usage, that of the Fourth Gospel is less abstract, more concrete 
and personal, full of a sense of reality and saving significance through 
identification with the historical Jesus. 

But the most common and the most significant designation of Jesus 
in the Fourth Gospel is the title ‘“Son”’ or “Son of God,” denoting the 
relation of Jesus to God whom he frequently calls his Father. The term 
is surprisingly rich in content. As Son Jesus is pre-existent, only- 
begotten, one with God the Father by whom he was sent and to whom 
he is always subject (1:14; 3:35, etc.). He enlightens and saves the 
world by communicating the teaching and the truth which he has received 
from the Father. He fulfils Scripture, bestows the Spirit by whom he is 
himself filled, displays supernatural knowledge, gives eternal life and 
future blessedness with the Father, to whom he returns. Prayer in his 
name is effective (14:13 f.), and abiding in him makes the Christian life 
fruitful (15:1, 2). In short, Jesus, not only in his deeds and words, but 
in his person, not only in the future, but in the present, is the revelation 
of the invisible God the Father, eternally the Son of God and the way to 
life and light and truth and God which is salvation. Accordingly the 
Gospel was written that its readers might believe that Jesus is the Christ, 
the Son of God, and that believing they might have life in his name 
(John 20:21). 

In conclusion, it may be said that the Johannine Christology presents 

466 


THE CHRISTOLOGY OF THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS 141 


formally a fusing of the Christology of Paul, which emphasizes the 
eternal and divine in Christ at the expense of the historical and earthly, 
with the reactionary Christology of such writings as Hebrews and the 
Synoptic Gospels. The gnostic systems of Paul’s day and later had 
pushed the higher side, the divine side of the Pauline Christology to 
violent extremes issuing in Docetism. The Gnostics emphasized the 
pre-existent, the divine, at the expense of, even with the annihilation of, 
the human element. Such writings as Hebrews and the synoptists 
reacted and added the human by emphasizing the historical life of Jesus 
—his human nature. The Fourth Gospel aims to meet the violent 
extremes of Gnosticism, such as Docetism, but has itself such deep sym- 
pathy with and regard for the vital truths in Gnosticism that it carries 
the Pauline emphasis on the divine to quite a new extreme, viz., the 
eternal divinity of Jesus Christ as Logos and Son. Not merely in his 
Incarnation and Death did Jesus reveal God and bring salvation. Jesus 
revealed God in his life on earth, his daily life. Those who could not see 
the divine glory even in the earthly Jesus were blinded (14:22) by 
ignorance and evil. They were of the world. But Jesus on earth 
declared God (1:18), though his future glory would be enhanced. His 
life was a constant revelation of God. Hence no need of a transfigura- 
tion as in the Synoptic Gospels. The synoptic writers did not advance 
to the idea that Jesus was the eternal revelation and declaration of the 
glory and character of God. They with Paul thought of the “days of his 
flesh” as a period of humiliation, sacrifice, and suffering only. Hebrews 
advances somewhat on the Pauline idea in making more of the earthly 
Jesus like the synoptists and in making Jesus’ place in relation to God 
apparently permanent. Jesus in Hebrews is the constant vicegerent of 
God. Paul, Hebrews, and the synoptists all reveal closer dependence 
than the Fourth Gospel on the christological ideas of the primitive 
Christian community in that they all show traces in lessening degree of 
the adoptive idea of Sonship. The Fourth Gospel has broken with the 
adoptive idea altogether. The idea of Sonship in the Fourth Gospel 
approaches that of the mystery-religions, in which Sonship consists in 
wisdom and perfect knowledge of the divine. The Fourth Gospel does 
not have the idea of the miraculous conception as Matthew and Luke, 
nor the theocratic or adoptive idea of the primitive community. Ina 
very true and deep sense the Fourth Gospel has carried to its climax 
what appears to have been Jesus’ own sense of Sonship (Matt. 11:27). 
Like Jesus, the Fourth Gospel has discounted the “Son of David’ 
idea in connection with the Messiahship. It has also discounted the 
467 


142 HISTORICAL AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES 


eschatological element. The parousia has been largely spiritualized 
into the abiding presence of Christ through the presence of the Spirit 
or Comforter whom he will send. The future judgment and resurrection 
have become spiritualized and made present experiences. In this 
reduction of the eschatological element the Fourth Gospel is also at one 
with Jesus. The writer has developed, enlarged, made objective and 
absolute the feeling which Jesus himself had, viz., that the Son alone knew 
the Father and that only the Son could therefore adequately reveal 
the Father to men. And moreover he has sincerely tried to do this 
without destroying the historical Jesus, indeed by using the historical 
Jesus and stoutly maintaining his humanity. The modern critic can 
see his failures; he feels that the writer of the Fourth Gospel has warped 
the historical and human in Jesus. But the mistakes of the writer need 
not and do not invalidate his fundamental thesis that, religiously 
speaking, Jesus is the final revelation of God because he actually leads 
men to God. Even the modern critic, indeed especially the modern 
critic, is beginning to see that in the historical Jesus there is the satisfying 
and efficient revelation of God. In this he is substantiating the main 
truth of the Fourth Gospel. 


468 


CONCLUDING REMARKS 


It has been the custom with scholars to class the Epistle to the 
Hebrews with those epistles which, though bearing marks of strong 
Pauline influence, cannot with sufficient certainty be assigned to the 
great apostle himself.t They have taken form under the shadow of the 
figure of Paul and are called “deutero-Pauline.” 

In the course of this study numerous instances of contact with 
Pauline thought have appeared. But in every case the similarity has 
been somewhat superficial. The point of view and the method of 
presentation have been quite different. It would be exaggerating to 
say that the writer of this Epistle was not influenced by Paul and his 
letters. But it is clear that this influence has been greatly exaggerated. 
Holtzmann, von Soden, and Briickner have all emphasized dependence 
upon Paul, and their cases are strong for some measure of dependence. 
But in many of the cases which they cite the similarity is to be assigned 
to common sources rather than to direct contact. The tradition and 
doctrine of the primitive Christian church were the common source of 
much that is similar in Paul and the writer of Hebrews. In other cases 
of contact the similarity is eclipsed by the dissimilarity. Our author is 
original and characteristic in his presentation of thoughts and doctrine 
that are also Pauline. 

The writer of this Epistle had not the religious genius of Paul. He 
was intense, but not with the intensity and abandon that characterized 
Paul. He was intellectual and religious, though not profound and 
mystical. But he should not be put in the shadow of the great apostle, 
for he was not dominated by him. He deserves to stand alone as pre- 
senting a distinctive view of Christian experience and thought. 

And as his general view of Christian truth is distinctive, even more 
is his Christology distinctive. It isnot predominantly Pauline. Paulin- 
ism is one of the strands in it, but it is subordinate. The Christology of 
the Epistle to the Hebrews is not strictly a unity. It is a composite 
formed amid the atmosphere of the mystery-religions by the union of the 
views of the primitive Christian church with the writer’s Alexandrian 
views of the Logos, the distinctively Pauline view forming a third but 
subordinate strand. In many respects the distinctively Pauline view 


t Ephesians, I and II Timothy, and Titus. Cf. Moffatt, Introduction to the 
Literature of the New Testament, Chap. iii. 


469] 143 


144 HISTORICAL AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES 


itself approached closely to the Alexandrian view of the Logos in sub- 
stance though not in form. This has helped to give color to the view 
that Hebrews is “deutero-Pauline.”’ But the proper way to view the 
movement is not to think of the writer of Hebrews as approaching the 
Logos doctrine by combining the primitive Christian and distinctively 
Pauline views, but rather to think of him as approaching the Pauline 
view by combining the primitive Christian view with the Alexandrian 
Logos doctrine. This attempt to combine the two views produces in 
Hebrews what Harnack calls the ‘“‘pneumatic Christology’? as over 
against its chief rival in the apostolic age, the “adoption Christology.’ 
Harnack fails to see what an important part the adoption Christology 
plays in the Epistle to the Hebrews. 

In the primitive Christian view, which the writer of Hebrews sought 
to combine with the Alexandrian, there were the two rival Christologies, 
the adoption and the pneumatic.s It is difficult to say how far the 
writer of Hebrews used the primitive Christian pneumatic view, for the 
Alexandrian thought when applied to a historic person would produce 
something very similar to the pneumatic view. It is likely that the 
writer belonged to a circle of Christians who held both the adoption 
and the pneumatic views, though strictly speaking they are mutually 
exclusive. Harnack says that the two ‘“‘came very near each other 
when the Spirit of God implanted in the man Jesus was conceived 
as the pre-existent Son of God.’’4 The adoption view was especially 
strong at Rome,’ and this may be another link uniting our author 
with the Roman church. 

It is at any rate clear that in addition to the Alexandrian and pneu- 
matic views, which cannot be clearly distinguished, our author had 
accepted the adoption Christology of the primitive church and used the 
language of this view. Moreover, his emphasis on the humanity of 
Jesus, on the qualities of character which to the Oriental more than to 
the Occidental indicated a noble God-fearing man, on the development 
of his character through suffering, on his exaltation of character—all 


t Harnack, History of Dogma, I, pp. 190 f., 192, ἢ. I. 

267d 5. Ὁ. τοῦ πὶ: Es 

3 [bid., I, chap. iii, sec. 6. 

4 Ibid., 1, p. 193. 

5 Eusebius, H.E., V, 28, 3; cf. Harnack, op. cit., 1, Ὁ. 191, ἢ. 1: “The representa- 
tives of this [adoption] Christology, who in the third century were declared to be 
heretics, expressly maintained that it was at one time the ruling Christology at Rome 
and had been handed down by the apostles.” 


470 


THE CHRISTOLOGY OF THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS 145 


these and many other elements are in essential harmony with the adop- 
tion view. In this respect Hebrews is with the synoptists rather than 
with Paul. 

On the other hand, the writer as distinctly holds the “pneumatic” 
view since he holds that Jesus was a pre-existent spirit-being, identifying 
him with the Logos of Philo, though he does not use the term. The 
truth is that he has failed to fuse the two views. He speaks of an 
inception of Sonship, yet leaves the impression that the Son was eternal. 
More than Paul he subordinates Jesus to God, comparing him as a 
spirit-being to the angels. Yet he applies to him the term θεός, though 
only indirectly, and he uses language so exalted (1:3) as to indicate 
that he probably conceived of Christ as an eternal spirit-being in some 
unique relation to God as compared with other spirit-beings, a relation 
however which he does not define. 


471 


SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY 


BLEEK, Commentar iiber den Hebréer-Brief. 1828-40. 
De.itzscu, Epistle to the Hebrews. 1857. 

Rieu, Lehrbegriff des Hebréerbriefs. 1867. 

Davipson, Hebrews. 1882. 

KeEIL, Commentar iiber den Hebréer-Brief. 1885. 

von SoDEN, ‘‘Hebrierbrief” [Handcommentar zum N.T.]. 1892. 
MENEGOZ, La théologie de l’épitre aux Hébreux. 1894. 
Harnack, History of Dogma. 18094. 

Bruce, The Epistle to the Hebrews. 1899. 

Muiuican, The Theology of the Epistle to the Hebrews. 1899. 


Weiss, B., ‘Der Brief an die Hebrier” [Meyer Kommentar zum N.T.]. 


PEAKE, Hebrews. 1904. 

WERNLE, Die Anfange unserer Religion. 1904. 

Westcott, The Epistle to the Hebrews. 10906. 

Juucuer, Einleitung in das Neue Testament. 1906. 

Scott, A pologetic of the New Testament. 1907. 

Hotimann, ‘“‘Hebrierbrief” [Die Schriften des N.T.]. 1907. 
Bousset, Hauptprobleme der Gnosis. 1907. 

GoopsPEED, The Epistle to the Hebrews. 1908. 

ZAHN, Introduction to the New Testament. 1909. 

SanpDAY, Christologies, Ancient and Modern. 1910. 

Wetss, B., Der Hebrierbrief in zeitgeschichtlicher Beleuchtung. 1910. 
WEIsS, J., Christ, the Beginnings of Dogma. 10911. 

Ho.ttzMann, H., Neutestamentliche Theologie. 1911. 

FEINE, Theologie des Neuen Testaments. 1I91t. 

Morratt, Introduction to the Literature of the New Testament. 1911. 


1902. 


PFLEIERER, Die Vorbereitung des Christentums in der griechischen Philosophie. 


1012. 
CLEMEN, Primitive Christianity and Its Non-Jewish Sources. 1912. 


RIGGENBACH, “Der Brief an die Hebraer” [Zahn Kommentar zum N.T.]. 


1913. 

WEINEL, Biblische Theologie des Neuen Testaments. 1913. 
KENNEDY, St. Paul and the Mystery-Religions. 1913. 
ΝΆΑΙΕΝΕ, The Epistle of Priesthood. 1914. 


472 


[146 


PAGE 


HEB. 
πο ΕΝ 55 £., 69 
ith. Cee 49, 50, 95 f. 
πρῶ ΑΕ a's. «is + « IOI, 102. 
1:5...29, 30, 84 f., 89, 120. 
EOOSLED 8 co 4 Coenen 37. 
τ τ τυ.-...-.... 68 f. 
Te, Ge ont ᾿ς, 53 
Le did os Ogee eee gl. 
τ eee 76. 
ΠΕΡ Δ τ. 0 Ὅώ.- 50. 
OU Ὅς τον 99. 
τ τ -᾿,..... 76 f. 
us a) oS 45. 
i ... 27 
Oo A re 326 

0 a 113 
22549, .< }dUOe ae pee 51 
22° 5 Us A Se  .--.-.-.. 66 f 
πα hes cies 38, 39 
EE ee cs aa ss 114 
225 5 οὁὖὦὝἐ«εο : eae 92 
ΟΠ τς νος 13 
ΡΠ .......᾿ IIo 

147] 


INDEX TO PASSAGES 


HEB. PAGE 
BETA RD foi wes λα 40 
Asa Sate epatatel esa oustehcierparcts 44. 
Biel tere Annies om Meee 29, 

on 64, 86, 89, 91, 120. 
Lt aa AAT ROCA 54 
LE ce ἘΠ Seine a 22, 28 
CEC al ainalh ce Wak ee Oe aioe 92. 
EE OUENE notes aveeiecalel eatetans Σ 44. 
GES Ne store sericea 13 
WES Sass! Wstele a tdencie’ ore yee? 48. 
GRRE sel LR λτ 13 
RAY Conic ask wee 52 
OS Ole orn aver aries 93 f. 
One MaKe eee 53: 
Pie Lac 2S Rp cig eh ata a 4rf 
ΑΙ RRS ORR 51, 94f 
7 SRG fe opener tees 47, 49 
Αγ δ ΡΟΝ 27, 43 
ie BONS sins Siero te ΥΩ 8 g2 f. 
BoE ae ἜΝ ee as 78. 
δε cs PREC AIRS aie 12 
Sars Ύγα ον ee neat ee 12 
QHEL Οὐ ΩΝ Ὁ eee τοῦ 


473 


HEB. PAGE 
Ὁ: 8 oe ee area 46, 47. 
Qera ue erantls Leer ee 13. 
GEO. Greco ἐν ΜΡ BEG oe 47 
OesOl in Στ τ as cama 47 
ΤΟΣ ΎΤ πότ ἐς τ τς 451 
TORS ΡΥ ΤΊΣ 23, 102 
TORT ae rca ore 54, 55 
Tee bE BR Ao soe edb oe 53 
FOLIOS Se eaters 93 f 
νος ΕΟ OER eee IIO 
if oh SAS BAP rence III 
Το at ey ΤΕ 
ΤΙ 23. ΠΑ ΔῊΝ 38. 
TTI τῶ ΕΝ ΠΡ ΤΠ 64ῖ 
TIT S30) 40m πον ἢ eel 35 
TA rast Sieyay Meee oschalt 25, 26. 
ἘΠ ΤΟΣ νον a WIA ke 46. 
Ta τς ΣῈ δ) sitseusie: cisisists 69 
i hd ee eee ee ee 63 
EEC PARSE Ih δ CE SeOE 14 
Tse ea SN heey ct sre 64 f 
T3220) Fest era "7 


Syntax of the Participle in 
the Apostolic Fathers 


men 
DEC 6 19 


P 
UTS. 


Syntax of the Participle in 
the Apostolic Fathers 


In the Editio Minor of Gebhardt-Harnack-Zahn 


y By 
ῃ ν 
HENRY B. ROBISON, PH.D. 


THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO PRESS 
CHICAGO, ILLINOIS 


CopyricuHT 1913 By 
Tre UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO 


All Rights Reserved 


Published December, 1913 


Composed and Printed By 
The University of Chicago Press 
Chicago, Illinois, U.S.A. 


PREFATORY NOTE 


The purpose of this study is to exhibit with fulness and accuracy the 
usage of the participle in the writings of the so-called Apostolic Fathers, 
and to point out what usages are decreasing in frequency of occurrence 
and what are increasing, whether any earlier usage is absent, and whether 
any new usage appears. 

Such study has its value in helping to determine the place of these 
writings in the development of the Greek language, in the light which is 
thus thrown upon the usages of the New Testament books, and in the aid 
that is given for their interpretation. 

This literature arose from a grade of culture and realm of thought 
similar to that of the New Testament and extends a half-century the 
basis for the study of the New Testament usage. 


477] 5 


TABLE OF CONTENTS 


PAGE 

SMC REVS ha iar ν ἀπ 7 0 ent am rte ΗΝ tonite in Lg 
CHAPTER 

[PENSE . . ay PE Re ae Ete hey Ut ae ΤῊ 

I. The Present Participle SOU Εἰ ΚΟΥ RR 

PSM ANEOUS ACHION ni): ole LP) EP aN) aC Oe AN er et acd ER 

2. Identical Action .. LL, Bota, ΠΡ Vs fsa 

3. Past Action Still in Popes AM ae WER tee cme Ese eA NRO AON. 

ΠΝ ΠΟΥ ΠΕ ΠΟΙ ΘΟ shee keke wy MAU ah eye) a) bee 

Ree AO CMUILUEGS | estas a. Sn oe, cali a Siete tty ea tae, 

feebnesGenera Present ogee Se eet i ok eg 

τς πη ΙΝ Particinley)..0: 95° . 6 i o ko foe eb iO 

PA NfecenentvAGHON oo! oy ey i eS Pe ee We yt ES 

mirCoustative Action). «2 ole iso alg hs a 

b) Ingressive Action ERE Nee ae ΤΡ τ | 10 

me nective Action =)" Wi πΠὺ  oe τυ ee 

Pec omeldent; Acuont >). ΕΛ Oe Rn RE 

a) Identical Action .. Sih AS hie ao ce At cai 

b) Object of Verbs of τ EE ΟΡ ΕΝ Vac SE 

aaabime-relation Undetined!) 3) .) / iiyeh mae) RO ee a? 

ie The Perfect Participle . . . yaaa aac Its a a Ted) Bene cD 

1. Past Action and Resulting State St Sih on hus ck DT ΤΩΣ 

SPE ISMMPESLALE Nak | ene ee) AT Cem τ Loerie 28 

pepo che Piupertect ον A ca, Dw EAs a aed 

ΠΟ Puture Participle ὦ f° 2 at a og) Ae a eg 

Il. Locicat Force... ἀν OM RH, ER A las Fone 

I. The Adjective Participle SAD μον τ Som ok bir ty ae UU hae PIO 

AeINESETICLIVE AALEPIDULIVE 10S a) aie geal) url Sp klca ets ee ea 

ΘΕ ἀπά σεν ACETIDULLVEs yf “yell ache: SAN as EN oe tates gee 

SNe triOltive-adverbialy? Ph iigpei oo) vii ert Ae RU ee 8 

wo eredicative Adjéctive Participle:). πο τὰ Se eB 

MU ACIECLIVER LS) isi ais (ite Seen) Aayihengh) ci viva dR care 1 eo 

Ὁ ΒΟΥ ΒΤ ΘΕΟΣ ΣΕ ΚΠ Agee ia Da a 20 

ὉΠ Π5 6 οἰ ΟΠ ΘΟ ΠΕ ΘΙ 0) bbe ἐκ τ ΣΥΝ 390 

ἘΠΕ ΠΕ Adverpial Participle.. vise. ye. 2) εν een aey 

PAPERS Et Kf Nh vs Nadel Gee Leh Κα 12 

2. Condition eae a RA see mds ean SSE ure ewe he oof Se} 

AS ONGCESSIOM ES ye. ρον tetera NOU RaG! ΤΉ 013 

A UCAause ras πο MIN ACU he te Piet Benes Nmnin Ul)“ LYS MED pe gat ch awe te) 

5. Purpose and Result Babee Ph! = ork San On, AONE de she Pal ec 


479] 


~J 


8 HISTORICAL AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES 


CHAPTER PAGE 
6..Mieans 2/5) 2608, 2 ey GA ale 
ΙΑ ΠΟΙ 92." 2 one oy a -- 
8. Attendant Cheumetance bo Be τσ -- 

III. The Substantive Participle sow etl 6 wll! el “0 Ὁ 

1. As Subject. Ro νος a a rrr 

a. As Object Jt...) 6 es Va ee bat” 2 

3, In Indirect Discourse ©. 3.52.0: oS ee 

4. As Limiting.Genitive .0.0 « ΠΝ 

5. Object of Preposition τ προ ως (rr 

III. CONDENSED STATEMENTS AND TABLES. . . . ;. . πὴ 

I. \Use of the Genitive Absolute . .. ... . |. + = re 

Il.’ Negatives with the Participle . . .... . « .| 3 ee 

Ili. Participles Used forthe Finite Verb . . +. . . 3) 300m 

IV. Anacoluthic Participles ieee . 

Table I. Number of Eanienlesa in Bach Glass . ΤῈ 

Table 11. Averages of Occurrence . . 41 
Table III. The Tenses of the Principal Verh with Which ἘΠ 

Participle ΕΞ Used Ὁ 5. oe 15 

Table IV. The Logical Force of the Parnes | - 

V. Comparisons with the New Testament and Classical Greek . 44 


480 


BIBLIOGRAPHY 


Alexander, W. J. ‘“‘Participial Periphrases in Attic Prose,” A. J. Phil., IV, 
291-308. 

Blass, F. A Grammar of New Testament Greek. London, 1808. 

Bolling, G. M. ‘The Participle in Hesiod,” Catholic Univ. Bulletin, 1897, pp. 
421-71. 

Brugmann, K.,and B. Delbriick. Grundriss der Vergleichenden Grammatik der 
indogermanischen Sprachen, Especially Vol. II of the ‘Syntax.’ Strass- 
burg, 1886-1906. 

Burton, Ernest D. Syntax of the Moods and Tenses in New Testament Greek. 
Chicago, 1903. 

Buttmann, A. A Grammar of the New Testament Greek. Andover, 1873. 

Gildersleeve, B. L. ‘The Construction of τυγχάνω," A. J. Phil., XII, 
76-79. 

“On the Stylistic Effect of the Greek Participle,” ibid., IX, 137-57. 
Giles, P. A Short Manual of Comparative Philology. New York, toot. 
Goodwin, W. W. Syntax of the Moods and Tenses of the Greek Verb. Boston, 

1890. 
Herbig, G. ‘“‘Actionsart und Zeitstufe,’’ Indogermanische Forschungen, VI, 
157-269. 
Jannaris, A.N. An Historical Greek Grammar. London, 1897. 
Meltzer, H. ‘‘Vermeintliche Perfectivierung usw.,” J. F., XII, 319-72. 
Miller, C. ΝΥ. E. Imperfect and Aorist in Greek,” A. J. Phil., XVI, 139-85. 
Moulton, J.H. A Grammar of New Testament Greek, Vol. I. Edinburgh, 1906. 
Mutzbauer, C. Grundlagen der griechischen Tempuslehre. Strassburg, 1893. 

Purdie, Eleanor. ‘“‘Perfective Actionsart in Polybius,” J. F., IV, 63-153. 

Seymour, T.D. ‘On the Use of the Aorist Participle in Greek,” Transactions 

᾿ A. P. Ass., 1881, pp. 88-οὔ. 

Simcox, W.H. The Language of the New Testament. New York, 1889. 

Spieker, E.H. “On the So-called Genitive Absolute and Its Use, Especially in 
the Attic Orators,” A. J. Phil., VI, 310-43. 

Votaw, C. W. The Use of the Infinitive in Biblical Greek. Chicago, 18096. 

Wheeler, J. R. “The Participial Construction with τυγχάνω and xvpéeiv,’’ 
Harvard Studies, I. 


481] 9 


CHAPTER I 


TENSE 


The tenses of participles distinguish the conception of the action 
denoted with respect to its progress. 

The time-relation between the action of a verb and that of its depend- 
ent participle is not expressed directly by the tense of the participle, but 
is indicated by the facts revealed by the context taken in association 
with the indication of the tense as respects progress. The present 
participle describes an action as in progress, and the perfect participle 
denotes the existing result of a past action; naturally the time of the fact 
expressed by the present and the perfect participle is, in general, the same 
as that of the principal verb; but this is not necessarily or uniformly the 
case. The aorist participle, on the other hand, describes an action as a 
simple event, which may occur antecedent to, or coincident with, the 
action of the principal verb. The aorist participle is most frequently 
employed, however, when the action is antecedent to that of the principal 
verb, an action antecedent to, and separate from, that of the principal 
verb being obviously more likely to be thought of as a simple fact than 
one which is contemporaneous with it, and contemporaneous action 
naturally being thought of as in progress. The future participle, unlike 
the other participles, has temporal force, the relations which it expresses 
necessarily involving subsequence to the action of the principal verb. 

The following classification sets forth the distinctive uses of the 
participle, giving all the cases of each category; but the classification 
must not be allowed to obscure the fact that the participle often passes 
by imperceptible degrees from one usage to another, and may serve two, 
or possibly more, uses at the same time. 


I. THE PRESENT PARTICIPLE 


1. The present participle of simultaneous action.—The present par- 
ticiple normally denotes that the action which it expresses (whether 
durative, iterative, or conative) is thought of as in progress; most fre- 
quently the action is simultaneous with the action of the principal verb. 

Very frequently the action of the verb falls within the period covered 
by the participle; as in II Clem. 15:37,* ἔτι λαλοῦντός σου ἐρῶ: ᾿Ιδοὺ 
πάρειμι. 

*The superior figure denotes the participle in the verse. 

483] 11 


12 HISTORICAL AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES 


Less frequently the action of the verb and that of the participle are 
of the same extent; as in I Clem. 17:17, οἵτινες ἐν δέρμασιν aiyeio καὶ 
μηλωταῖς περιεπάτησαν κηρύσσοντες THY ἔλευσιν TOU χριστοῦ. 

Rarely the action of the participle, while accompanying that of the 
verb, is subsequent to it; as in Magn. 9:17°3, εἰς καινότητα ἐλπίδος 
ἦλθον, μηκέτι caBBariLovres, ἀλλὰ κατὰ κυριακὴν ζῶντες. 

The following is a list of the instances of the present participle of 
simultaneous action: 

1 Clem. 1:22, 35-9: 15) 221774, 375) gira"; 11:22: “eee 
12:32" 7} T4257 7; 17:10, 21, .573 20:1", 27, 4.5; 245285: 255s 
28: 1.5.3; 29:17 7; 30:3" 4; 31:3° 7; 34:47; 35:8; 38:25, 0 mie, 
40:45; 41:17 7; 42:34, 4 3; 43:14, 27, 53; 44:07; 45:57; 48:44; 51:47; 
Seite bes Spee ΘΟ: το; ΠΟΙ ke ΟΣ: et 

If, Clem. τ" 63° 4, 75,) 81; 2274, 5:57; 6:37, O°; ΟΝ 
TO: 3° 2, 41 τὰ; 1ἰ:25; (125607) 135375 11 4,37, 4°; τόρ τὸ say 
CREEP: dere 0 ck es > ey ae Gy ee 

Barn. 1:3*, 73" 5.5 δῖ: 2:2" 4, 3%, 7%, 09; 325°; 4:07 σον 
τοῦ 3, 03% 523%, G*, 77, 84, Tom 4; O24", 12%, 15 3; 7/20") 57 ee 
το: 4h 2° 35.57 705%; rrrot, LO", ΕΣ ἢ; 42:25 2,57, 74: 4) oa τ ΠΝ 
τὰ 2205: 7° 43. τότε OF, ΤΟΙ 17 27; 193 10% 4° 3) τὺ. Ὁ ΠΡ τ 

Diogn. αἰ τὸ 45 2: τὴ} 4t, 75 95. 3237535. 524t.?, 26% 3. ΟΝ 
8: 055; 7:25, 25.373, 1, OF) 777, 85, O21? *, 27; 10:4", 77) 
12: Ὁ, of. 

Eph.:1: 25, 2:23; 4:27; 5337; 671", 2.) Ὁ: ΟΣ 7; το amen 
Pets 50: ΤΙΣ, ΤΟΣ so eOne 4. ler +, 

Magners? mein so 327173 822°: 5:1. 3,2... τ or eh ΠΡ ee 

Trallrs; 22575 2: 2 42a"; ει 7) 82075 of"; 1285) 2a ΕΔ 

ΠΌΤ: ΕΠ 2:2: eee Or 945057 504, ats Sie 2 nor es. 

Phitad a4 Var as, 692 2 srt: 224) 2%) Beak 2: 

ΒΤ το ΤῸ ἤπ 2. Το; 7:10} ΟΣ 75 ΤΣ ΤΥ ΝΗ 

Pols girs 2:τ. 

Philip. 2:27°3) 2:; 2:2. 7.2; 4227-3, 3° 4: 5:2) 3. 9% Ὁ ite 
33; 7228-45. 

Mart. 325) ort, 21. 21 Ὁ 4 2 Το 5:40 ne 2h a4. ΟΣ το, 
22:15 Be τ 554. γάτυ δὴ ΟΣ 24) 218. TOUR 2: αὐ: 21 Ὁ ΠΝ 
OMe ΧΑ θη Το ggg ae ὙΠ 5 1522. Eins, 271; 18: ΡΠ 5 
2 τατος τ τ, 

Herm: Vis, 1, 122%, 25. 2.5.4τ04. 80. 20 12 21 5: 4:|5. δ᾽ σα ot  τ 
1.2: 1 ἘΠ τ Ως; gts 203m 83; ASE III, Toa: 52 saa OT Fae gras 
2247, (OF Το BNE 223i 7, Sede One aus) Fst ogo 

484 


SYNTAX OF PARTICIPLE IN THE APOSTOLIC FATHERS 13 


CTO ya Onn 2... 31, Roney Treas ats nests 12:2... 21. TV. 2:3, 
ΒΡ ΟΣ 2512 δῖ 3567, 735. Vy rire: 4, 37) 47. 

ee testy At es. 05; LIT τ 22. 15. TV 5. τὴ ΝΜ} τι 2 Ὁ, 2.3.4 
ΕΠ οὐ ΘΕ ΙΕ τὰ ΣΝ τον δι: Ὁ τοῦ Χο 2: πὴ: ὑεῖ; ET 
ππ )9. £37, 547, 257-7: XT, 22445 327. 41.32.3. 6:232..5. ae 

Pema As 6} 5. δὲ: TT ig sa 5.3.5. τὺ τὰ ΜΝ Ge. Bt ae 117 τ 51; 
ΜΝ ἸὈὈἸπ»ὺβἶΈν ετ το  , 55 2:35» 45: ἘἩΨ0Π ἘΠῚ gi gh gts: Aces; 1G; 
6:65: 312: VI, 1:11:3.3. 2 τι: δ: ὁ: 2:2", 41-3, 5 6:- 2: 3, "ἜΣ a 2.5: 
1: 4.3. Bt a 5:4." 2. 5, 73; VII, 1:7: ay 61: 1: VIII, fer. 21: a 167; aro 
Sues 4°, O: 1°, 3.7, 4°; τοῦτο; 4% 7; EX, 1:3%, 97 3; 2:48; 3:34; 
ΠΤ 0:1", 3°; 7:17, 375 9258) TOLL 7) §%5, 10257, 77}. 13727, 
It 3. 20:2. 3* 21:10; 22:15, 2; 242 at 2 4: 96726 7; 27:15, 3": 

meterae7?, 13° 7; 17:67; 16:47, 85. 

2. The present participle of identical action The present participle 
used of action conceived of as in progress not infrequently denotes the 
same action as the verb with which it is used, but it usually describes the 
action from some different point of view. The relation between the 
different points of view of the action of the verb and the participle 
may be: 

a) That of fact to method: 

I Clem. 17:41, ἀλλ᾽ ἀυτὸς ἑαυτοῦ κατηγορεῖ λέγων: Οὐδεὶς καθαρὸς ἀπὸ 
ῥύπου" 

ΠΕΡΙ 1:32. *; 77:4"; 20247: 20:15; 53:3"; 50:21; 62:25. 

ἘΠ ἸΘΙη: 13:33; 17:77. 

See 2:0 5: 12:10: 12:41: 15:2}; 1τ6:83 052. 45: 21:7 

een, 2:75. 15. 81: 2°37: 4:1. 222% τοῦ: x12 1’, 28-7, 

Eph. 9:18. 

Trall. 6:2". 

Prats 2:11: 7 °.2°, 

Piilad. 7:27. Ἶ 

Smyrn. 5: 2", 

ἘΠῚ. 2:37. 

ΤῸ 224773; δ: 73-4: 8:25. 92 25. 

Mertens. 5593, 43: 2.1.2. 2..25: 1 4s 12 ΠῚ τ gto 2:15. 4 2; 
Bea to:7*; IV, 2:2". 

Peat NEM TS ATS 27s asa MG sats) ΧΟ: 25. 3. el ἀπ 2 012, 
ΠῚ a a 

prea RN τ Οἱ: 8...“ TV τ 523. Mot το τ lente ΖΗ: 
ἘΠ τ: γ; VELL, 2:4} 6:55: δ᾽ 7:41; 0:5}; 1Χ Ὑ0:25; 25:1". 

b) That of outward form to inner significance or quality: 

485 


14 HISTORICAL AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES 


Barn. 16:2!, ἀλλὰ πῶς λέγει κύριος καταργῶν αὐτόν; μάθετε. 

ΠΤ ΟἸΘΙΩ: δι 21: 25" rg ees ΖΈΣΙΝ aR ΤΡ; ec ἄν 

Barn. 2:97; τότ2ι 

Mart. 2:23. 

c) That of act to purpose or result: 

I Clem. 7:11: ?, ταῦτα, ἀγάπητοι,οὐ μόνον ὑμᾶς νουθετοῦντες ἐπιστέλλομεν, 
ἀλλὰ καὶ ἑαυτοὺς ὑπομιμνήσκοντες. 

EClems 70% aris ΙΝ; op lar 90.: 2». 

ΤΠ Clem: τῆς 52. τὸ: τ΄ 

Diogn. 12:37, 53. 

Herm. Mand. IV, 3:37. 

Did. 16: 2". 

3. The present participle of past action still in progress—Once the 
present participle denotes an action which begins before the action of the 
principal verb and continues in progress up to, and during, the time 
denoted by the latter: 

Philip. 1:2', καὶ ὅτι ἡ βεβαία τῆς πίστεως ὑμῶν pila, ἐξ ἀρχαίων καταγ- 
γελλομένη χρόνων, μέχρι νῦν διαμένει καὶ καρποφορεῖ. 

4. The present participle for the imperfect—The present participle is 
also sometimes used as an imperfect to denote an action in progress 
antecedent to, and ending before, the beginning of the action of the 
principal verb. 

II Clem. 9:57, Χριστὸς 6 κύριος ὁ σώσας ἡμᾶς, ὧν μὲν TO πρῶτον πνεῦμα, 
ἐγένετο σάρξ. 

ΠῚ Cleni. 2:67; 9: 57: 

Smyrn. 3: 1°. 

Mart. 13:23. 

5. The present for the future —In some instances the present participle 
denotes an action that is thought of as future with reference to the time 
of the principal verb. This usage in the Apostolic Fathers is limited to 
ἔρχομαι in Hermas and one occurrence of πέμπω in Pol. 8: 2?. 

Sim. IV, 1:24, 6 yap αἰὼν 6 ἐρχόμενος θέρος ἐστὶ τοῖς δικαίοις. 

Poly 8:25: 

Herm. Vis. Ὁ 2: 7.; ΠῚ ΟΝ ras 25h ΟΣ. 

Εἶτα: ΝΠ τΞ.25. ὃ: Χο τις. 

For the present participle μέλλων followed by an infinitive of 
another verb see the future participle. 

6. The general present participle.-—The present participle is also used 
without reference to time or progress, simply defining its subject as belong- 
ing to a certain class, i.e., the class of those who do the action denoted by 

486 


SYNTAX OF PARTICIPLE IN THE APOSTOLIC FATHERS 15 


the verb. The participle in this case becomes a simple adjective or 
noun and is, like any other adjective or noun, timeless and indefinite. 
This usage is a departure from the primary idea of progress in the 
present participle. 

A class may consist of those who habitually or constantly do a given 
act; as in I Clem. 11:13, τοὺς ἐλπίζοντας ἐπ᾽ αὐτόν οὐκ ἐγκαταλείπει, 
or of those who once do the act the single doing of which is the mark of 
the class; as in Magn. 5:2', καὶ ἕκαστον αὐτῶν ἴδιον χαρακτῆρα ἐπικείμενον 
ἔχει. The full list follows: 

πο τοι το 1:15, 373; 324°) τ; 7:5", 73; 8:47, 57; 9215; 10:37 3; 
tenes 57,9779; 13555, 4" 14227, 4b; τοῦτ 2, st; Osx" 4, 2% 7, 
genase 127, EO": £723"5 20:47; 21:21, Bae δ᾽, ἯΣ, 81:3. 22:21: 3, 6%, 8; 
23:17, 3° 7, 57; 24:57; 25:2", 37; 28:27, 457; 30:1", 47; 322% 7-3; 
15.3.5 8:: Ass": a5 25, aa ay el 61: 2: 3, ΤΙΣ 5: 36:27, an 6*: aa: 
gh 4535 3% 7; 38:27, 4΄;.20: 5", 97; 40:17, 3°, 45; 41:27, 3° 5; 42:45; 45:17, 
G7 Ὁ) 8; 46:27; 47:77; 48:43; 49:17; 51:17, 27; 52:2"; 53:47; 54:2", 
ΗΠ 5 50:2%, τοῦ, τοῦ, τό 7; 57:97; 58:13, 24; 59237 38-47, 456, 
eee wa, 3°, At; 612177, 27; 62:17: 7; 63:15. 

τ τ des PA, OFF) ok δ. οὐ GF gts grate ΠΣ 14. Et: 
eo 724. OG. 7", TX's. τοῦ 85; 11:25 3, τΆ2:..5. Ὁ; 14:1" 3, 2%, 37; 
era’: T0274, 3° 35 p7 sat 8:37 3, 24: 19217 5, 3%; 2022", 47. 

Seamer 2 2507-9. 2°, ὍΣΟΣ τοῖς | 3's 1%, 3%"'3, 57; 4:13, 6, 97, τοῦ, 159; 
oa, τ Ὁ", 103, ΤῈ 6:1. 5 6:, 81, at τοῦ" 3, 11: 18"; 332% 5, 41, St 2 
9°, 113, 8:21, co 3, rs Be, Gt: one at a 10:53, 8ι. 2. ΤΟΣ 5) 1|, 4: 7-10. 12. 13. 
ΒΡ ὩΣ 12:5, 85; 13:7}; 14:4", 57, 77, 67; 15:6"; 16:13, τοῦ 3..3: 5-6: 
ΡΥ 2), 4, 0.2.8. τ 01: 298, το. 2οῖ στ, 21 12: Mas γ:χ2.8..21. 
5΄. 

Πρ τ ετ το τῦ ὁ: 2:25. 4.2} 41.2. gis ates 5.5: goats 5:01; 171; 0:05 5; 
1:12}... 4°; 9:2"; το ΟΣ τὸ, Δ: δ᾽; Ir: 14, ane 7s 8; 12:13, 3°; 5’, 
6: 2-5, 7, Qt. 2. 3. 

ΒΕ ISSN ARG AS apie Tip toe ee Reesor A Ge So 15. .3: 8:10 2. ΟΣ ct 
ἘΣ ΝΠ 2. Ὴ 15:15; 10:2. 9s 7:1 Ὁ; Tosa 4e TOST, 20s, 21:25: 

eerie τ. Dt 25. 7.123. 321. ὅδ 5.25: ΞΕ 2... Girt, 22) Ὁ: 9": 

ΠΡ γδ εν ς γὴν τὴ, 55. 2 τ ats κι sinh, regan δον gets ΤΌΣΟΣ le τα τ 0 1552,23: 
δ 8: τὸ, Ὁ:25. τοῦτ; Lr217, 21; 11: τ" 

posers 272052757247, 26: 922%, 25. 

ΕΗ το τ τ 1 225: γ: 1: τι ει. ΠΣ: a 9s LA Ih eset ΤΟΣ 2. 

ΕἸΠΕ Ἐπ ΤΠ: 2:11... 5:2. 8.57: 01}. ks. OT 72 15... Bets eee 
eo 5. Τ1Τ1:15.2. 12: 1ὖ: 12:1’. 

TLS EER Οὐ 5:2 SRI 5:25 5; Ὁ: τὸ: 7325} 5: τὸ 9.1 

487 


16 HISTORICAL AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES 


Philipigts os79-\7, 33: (a: 93-93. 6294s Ὁ 25: 17:2}. 

Mart...17°2) rirs; 2:33; 4:15) ga? 5. Gi 17 3. Ss) “eros: ee 
ΟΣ 153,25; FO 29:9; ΣῈ} 255; 12:25.3.5;) τό: 1; 7:10 25. 8. τ το ολ 
202 ΤΟΣ. 

Herm. Ν|5..1 61 3-4, 8? 3°45; 2:21 ἀτοϑε τς, ΠΡ το 
1:25: acid 3 Ar: Ve oe TEE: 25 Τὸ: ai, 6:, τ: 87 4, 98; 2: αὖ 21: = 33; ἘΠΕ i 
gi. 2. 3, aes 3, 4 3. ope 6: τὴ 5 26 aoe 43, ἘΣΘ 6. 3: ἼΣΩΣ 24, τυ 
55) 8:3᾽, 45; 9:2", 35.47 7%, 57° 9, 01..5. 7°; τοι τὸ, TV, 2:92. 42. ΠΝ ἢ 
τα γος 

Mand. I, r:14-'5-9; TD, 121°, 2° 23-5, 41 5k 5.4. ὅσ 4 πη 
TV; 2:84, αὐτὸ Ὁ, 2:12, 3%) 3342-3, δἰ; airs: Vy Ὑπ20; oS 
VI, 1:3", 47; 224%, 57, τοῦ VOL, ria", 2° 25, 3%, 4%, 57 2-5-4 ὙΠ 
Gt 3) τοῦ 4, 121: TX, το τι τ, 6, 83, 11, 12% 23: Xi, 167, (Gee 
Se 115, 2°, a 43, ΒΩ 61: ΠΕ ao gr. 2 of: 2. 3, Ir: of ED 14 16, ΤῊΣ τ 
20"; ΧΗ, 1:2" 3"; 2:1", 2°; 3:2", ἌΝ: 4:3") 47:5 5° 6", 73 5:1’, 2h 4; 
ὁ: Pie OE 

Sim. I, 1:25, 4%, 57,6", 77 7, τοῦ 2s IT, 1:57" 3,63, 7°, 85. Ὁ πον 
TEL, rzrt 7-4, 373 IV, ὑπο 25 δἰ Gt: 3.5. 9°; V, 2:3", ΟΝ 
4:37, 4. 4 5:3°°4; δ᾽ δὴ; -7:4%3) Vi, 1:14,.4" 73, 2:27, τος ἀπὰς 
21:2: ἘΣ: ἀν 4" 4, on 67; ΠΣ VEE 1:47 2. 3, ἘΣ as VIII, 129%; 107, ΤΊΣ 15%: 
2:13, 22-3! an. aco a 07, Bae 5; A253, 61: 3. 3- as Ite Sr gi 3. a 4i 3, 
57° 3, OF 7; δ: 1τῦ, 57-8; 7:27, 45, 57, δ᾽; 8219s (9:49 42 τοῦς 2a 
TX, 14%, 5%, 6 77:3, 8.073. 222%, 5%, O75 45%) 2, δῖ. ἐξ ταῖς ee 
Οἵ. 2: sats ΤῊΣ 823% 43, oe 7.2: ΟΣ 755 Ὁ Ὑπ τ": T2205, he 8; 
13:55" 4; 14:3) 57°53, 67; «15:27, 377, 16:47, 6} 7:4; 3700" τ 
18: 17: 3, 21: 2. 4. ἊΝ ae EQ: 2:: 20:1); 21:11" 4: 5, a "5. 22:11" 3: 4: Pak ar 
4*;. 23:1", 2%, 3%, 4° 5; 24:17, 4°; 26:1" 7, 2%, 4°, 85 27:2" eee 
ἘΝ Ἐν 1... 20:9.» 4: 

Did. ΤΣ τὸ Sar S53" ΤΟΣ: wer 25, pike 81, ΤΌΣ: 5 τὸ τοῦς 
1, 25. ἀπ 3; χα ΣΝ, qt, 7%, δὲ, Οἷς, τοῦ, L545, 1257 2: 15 2 ΤΕ Ἐπ τ 
ΤᾺ τ τ ΤῸ: 20, 


II. THE AORIST PARTICIPLE 


The aorist participle is used of an action that is thought of as a 
simple event; it expresses completed action without further modification. 
This is its constant and only function. It may be graphically represented 
by a point. It denotes neither the time of the action, nor its progress, 
nor the existence of a result. These are learned, if at all, not from the 
tense, but in some other way. 

488 


SYNTAX OF PARTICIPLE IN THE APOSTOLIC FATHERS 17 


The verb, by its root or composition, and the context show: (1) that 
the action is single and momentary, the beginning and end occurring 
practically at the same instant or, at most, in a very brief period (momen- 
tary); (2) or that the action or state extends over any conceivable length 
of time, definite or indefinite, which may be represented by a line of 
definite or indefinite length, but reduced to a point by perspective 
(comprehensive); (3) or that the action consists of a series of events any 
one of which may be momentary or comprehensive, and represented by 
a point or by a line reduced to a point, the whole series being in turn 
reduced to a point by perspective (collective); (4) or that the act to 
which the aorist tense is applied is, in fact, the beginning of an action or 
state (ingressive); (5) or that the act to which the aorist tense is applied 
is, in fact, the conclusion of an action, the speaker having in mind only 
the end, or culmination, of the action (effective). 

The ingressive and the effective action are not always strictly 
momentary, but practically they may be so regarded, and may be 
represented by a point. 

Grammarians usually speak of the ingressive and the effective force 
as functions of the aorist tense, and so they seem. But may not this be 
due, in part at least, to the fact that the aorist tense describes an action 
as a simple event, thus allowing the inception or the result of the action 
(the possibility of which in such cases lies inherent in the verb) to manifest 
itself at the demand of the context? Not the aorist but something else 
tells whether a given case is ingressive or effective or not. The same 
verb, e.g., βαλεῖν, may be ingressive, “let fly”? (an arrow), or effective, 
“hit” (a man), or it may possibly describe the whole of an action as 
simply having occurred, “hurl” (an unlimited, indefinite conception). 
The tense as such does not tell which of these is meant in any given case. 
This, like momentary, comprehensive, and collective action, is learned 
from the verb and the context. 

It is important for the exact meaning to observe these distinctions, 
though it is neither possible nor necessary to apply them with certainty, 
in every case. 

It is impracticable to use momentary, comprehensive, and collective 
as exclusive categories, as they overlap; the series denoted by a collective 
aorist may contain momentary and comprehensive action. It is service- 
able, however, to attempt to classify all cases as referring to an action or 
state in its entirety or beginning or conclusion. Various writers give 
these classes various names, with some difference of meaning. The first 
is called indefinite, constative, summary, complexive, concentrated, and 

489 


18 HISTORICAL AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES 


punctualized; the second, inceptive and ingressive; and the third, 
resultative and effective. Strictly applied, resultative is limited to those 
verbs which in the present and the imperfect tense imply effort, while 
effective is applied to the final issue of the action of any verb. 

Constative, ingressive, and effective seem to describe the classes best. 
Constative is not satisfactory, but uniformity in terminology with the 
other two requires it. Ingressive and effective are perfective as over 
against constative; and Delbriick, Brugmann, and others insist that per- 
fective be limited to ingressive and effective verbs that are compounded 
with prepositions. 

Momentary action is classified as constative or effective according as 
the emphasis seems to be upon the action as such or upon its accom- 
plishment. 

The time of the action denoted by the aorist participle, of which the 
tense itself says nothing, may be past, present, or future with reference 
to the speaker, and antecedent to, or coincident with, the action of the 
principal verb. 

1. The aorist participle of antecedent action.—The aorist participle is 
most frequently used of an action antecedent in time to the action of the 
principal verb, the action of the participle ending when or before that of 
the verb begins. 

a) Constative action: Constative action may be momentary, com- 
prehensive, or collective. It may be graphically represented as described 
above or by the circumference of a circle. The action as a whole is looked 
upon as completed, without emphasis upon any one point. The bare root 
meaning is presented under its simplest and most indefinite aspect: 

I Clem. 9:2! ἀτενίσωμεν εἰς τοὺς τελείως λειτουργήσαντας TH μεγαλο- 
πρεπεῖ δόξῃ αὐτοῦ. 

LE .Clemy κ᾿ τ 612 :.4.. 6:25. 3 Οἷς, O12" Tost"; ΕΣ ΟΣ ΠΝ: 
26:17; 8:5 1.5; 44:33, 47; 45:77; 63:3". 

ΠῚ Clem 55775. 9: ote tee 12.3; aa hee pe 0 2 7 ἦν 

Barns rs", 575/072 117+ 4 55.8527, 375).92875) 24347; τό: τὴ 
205273" 

Digg a4 4:2 8: Ae ers 1 ene Ts 38. 


Eph. 10:3 ?: 3. 

Maen: 3273272). ΌΤΙ 
Rom. 14. 

Sniyras 724%: 

Pol..372% 


Philip. 723"5 | 332°: 
490 


SYNTAX OF PARTICIPLE IN THE APOSTOLIC FATHERS 19 


arte 2: 55: 2.2... Tso 172 29. TOL τοῦ 26:1: 

ἘΠΕ ΠΤ πο το το Gr Ss aan ata Lorre age, 1:21. 
ΕΠ 25... A ss τ᾽ 6. 25.. 6:25: TV, ταν, 44. 

ΠΥ ΤΡ τὸ το 2.3. 77 το 3: TTT τ. 

Εἰ τι: V6 28" 2:3. 5238: 6 52) OF ΣΟ eats: VELL, Ζ:οΣ; 
ΟΡ LN, G21"; 6:27; 11:47, 85. 25:28. 26:25; 28:2". 

Mid: x2"; 5:2". 

b) Ingressive action: Ingressive action may be represented by a 
point. It is the point of entrance into a state or the initial point of an 
action. The inception of the state or action precedes the action of the 
principal verb, but the state or the action itself may continue simul- 
taneously with that of the principal verb. Verbs, which in the aorist are 
ingressive in the present and imperfect tense, very frequently denote a 
state, emotion, sound, or exercise of office: 

II Clem. 1:7', ἠλέησεν γάρ ἡμᾶς Kai σπλαγχνισθεὶς ἔσωσεν. 

ΝΞ ροῦν 1OL4*; 1224"; 25:27, 35; 22:3; 421τ.᾽ 5) 44:2"; 
Bees: 2, 07; 50:157; 63:13, 2". 

Peete ie? 2297) ras 57s p23 gt 8s es gt 

eee Ta") TES?) 12:25. 23: 13:7}; τ: 8. τό 8", 

eee e155 Τὸ 25, 37, 47; 11:25; 12: τῇ, 6°. 

Meet. 3°? 221. τάττο;. 16:27. 

Peaen. το: τ" 27-7, 37. 

Mirai. 2215; 5:1". 

fom: 229"; 4:2". 

aia. 5:27: 6:2": 10:1". 

eunnyrn. 3-2"; 4227; 11: 3°. 

Philip. 2:13. 

ΠΕ ΓΕ ταὶ 404s 7:2]. B28: O27: 12:15; caress - 15:15; ΟῚ ΤΟ 

Pees.) 1 Ὑ:25. Ὁ. Oty 1ΠΠα: 5.0. 8.21. Ὁ: τοῦ" 1:32; 12:25, 
eee ΕΝ τ 85..3: 2᾽ 1 5: site Vga 

Lo SDT a PS Ὑ 25. 17 τΌὺ 98. Wie dade ed OYA 3:2: Ὁ ἈῸ το 9 tee 2-; 
IT, 4: 2". 

aioe gost VE, 3:37.) VELL, 3 :/2% ao": 16:33, asx or 1Ὁ 1, 2 TOn2*. 
ΠΡ τι}... ON, ESTO" 477s Org 4 BIOs. 13357) Oty 171, 2": 
ἘΠΕ Π7.-4., LOST", 2"; 203173 21:1. Ὁ. 22:1); 21:1; 24: at, 2; 
ΡΠ 3 15,5, Ὁ, 27:57; 28:1 29:37} 3022". 

Poids an: 5°. 

c) Effective action: Effective action may be represented by a point. 
It is the point of final issue, or conclusion of an action, the point that is 
stressed in the mind of the speaker: 

491 


20 HISTORICAL AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES 


Mart. 8:31, of δὲ ἀποτυχόντες τοῦ πεῖσαι αὐτὸν, δεινὰ ῥήματα ἔλεγον. 

I Clem. τσὶ 25; 522}, 08, 97743 G22") ats 7 7}; ΟΥΤ 2a er 
EES, 275) Ὑ2:2 5 π| 3"; 239075 αἰδοῖ ΠΟΣῚ; 3755) Sea eee 
24:57, 25:25, 45; 20:3", 27:27; 3x25", 2%; 32:24, 47; 33: 3% ΠΝ 
34:67; 35:53; 38:39; 41:27; 42:3% 7, 44; 43:21. 5, 37; 44:37, 5%; 46:67; 
48227, 47; 50:3"; 51:3"; 53:2" 7; 55:55, 27,37; 57:12"; 58:2) 
Gort?! 6a 1714-45 Oar 

ΤΙ Clem.,1:65; 22.7795; 323%): 52a7 2, 68) 6257; 7345,-5"\/Os Ὁ τ... 
BOT; 21267} 12:27; 53:3", 37} 14:33. HP τ ες; 57559 τ 
Τὴ 4 Ge SS Peet, OSA. 26: δὲς 

Barn. 1:43, 573. 2:10%; 326°; 4:65; 4:133; 5:73, ταὐῦ ΘΟ. ΤΟΣ ΠΣ 
723° 4, 9°45, ταῖς 8:3", 775 9:24", 75, 35 9°} 10:37, 0% 12°; Rese 
05, τοῦ; 142 23,0575, δῖ; τσ τον, 7713-9, gts 1623", 81; τοῦτ" 29. τὴ 

Diogn. 1:1. 8; 2:17 4: το, 8:o': 0:1 5, Ὁ. 2; 1033), ΟΝ 
gi. 3: 4. 8: 23> = “15. 5", 8?; 12:11" δ: 5 64. 

ΕΠ τ τ 21. 21} 282s Ὅς 215. 4. 2 ΟΣ ws gtk stage 

ΠΡΊΝ 21.25.7 ΟΣ ον 7.3.2 5.3: 8: 25. ἈΠ 5. Tre 1525: 

ral. TY 2a 8 1: ; 

ROM. Fors, 2222s GSE 27-4: ess tore, 

Philad:)522%5 2:2.) pens: ἘΠῚ rset 

Sumy. ΤῊ ΠΡ Ὁ :2.; nr sets 

Poles: 9-2" 

Philip.) 1: 17-2, 25; 2:47) 7-4°5, 2% asa", 235 432°: Oo" es 
Ὁ 25 hase Slay ae 

Mart. 1:17; 2:27, 41; 4:13: 5:37; 5:28; 6224) .25; (9 eee 
Sort 2: gt: 3; Orr, 21- 4: 5: = 24; 12:2; ae & 13. 2. ὩΣ 3 bys κὸν Τρ 
peat t. 4 25. rosa"? 3: 4 17317, 27; 18. 15: 45. το αν 2 
22:2. ΔῸΣ 

Henn. Vis. I, 1235; UL, τι 2.47.5: 2:25. 47, 8 4; ΠῚ το νὴ: 
253% 2, 41: grat © ots tas. 33s 8:11 4s Of Rts 12:2... We ἢ 
1:8: (estes) gets S245 rte ΣῈ 

Mand. TIT, 1:37, 5%; IV, x:6°; 2:23, 47; 3:47, ὁ, 77: Vj ae 
296%; τοῖ;. VILL, 1281s: EX, αὐγὴ, τοῖς ΧΟ rat Ὁ 28:25, Oe 
1 δὴ, OF; ΚΤ 2227, 40 515 55. δι 25; 

Sim. I, 1:67; V, 2:2", 3° 7, 4°, 6% 77, ῸΣ 7, ΤΟΙ 117; 5:7 3, Orage 
6:37, 45,7733) 7rr,. 3; VL αξ 4: ΝΠ αν: ΠΗ, 12493 ΣΕ 
OF 245 grey 25. 5, αὐ 98s 4:6; Oe gee Ὁ 1 8, 42:4: 
435, Lol τό. 38; ΥΤ τὸ; 2% 7.507; EX 2:67; 3:57) 5:3}; 6: 24; ae 
51, 6%; 822%) 44 S08, 535 923°, 2.1, 1Ο:8., 47; 13°75 9'> 14:37) 15: Geet 


492 


SYNTAX OF PARTICIPLE IN THE APOSTOLIC FATHERS 21 


πο νον τ: τυ} Be ie ie ea ALO emda a ae RR OL ie 
28:47; 29:41. 

erect TOT O47 WE TONG ὙΠ: ἢ 20; 12:1. 17:2, Ὁ", Gre 2, 
73 14:1" ?, 37; 16:5". 

2. The aorist participle of coincident action.— 

a) The aorist participle of identical action: The aorist participle 
agreeing with the subject of a verb not infrequently denotes the same 
action that is expressed by the verb, but it usually describes the action 
from some different point of view. The relation between the different 
points of view of the action of the verb and the participle may be: 

a) That of fact to method: 

Mart. I, 1:17, ὅστις ὥσπερ ἐπισφραγίσας διὰ τῆς μαρτυρίας αὐτοῦ 
κατέπαυσε τὸν διωγμόν. 

ΠΝ τ Ὁ 15; 7:41, 75; 24°17; τ4:2"- 

ΠΠ ΟἾΟΝ 533"; τὸ: τ΄. 

Brame : 85; 6:7. τὰ; 14:6; ΤΟ: 125. 

Eph. 9:13. 

orl 2°; 12:37. 

Smym. to:1'. 

Mamet tres 1: τὖ; 4:14; 6:27; 7:15. 

Ἐν 5 1 τὺ}; arate 113 τῦ τ στο 923 1657/67: \ 16:9", 
Set, 253°; 3:37; Ν᾽, τὶ οἷ, 

Mando TV, 2:27; XII, 3:5". 

ἘΠ ΠΕ τ <1? 5 4:21. 6527, 37, 5% 4; VI, 5:27; VEL, 2:77 αὐ 3"; 
a 50; S31, 11:27. 

8) That of outward form to inner significance or quality. 

I Clem. 55:5', παραδοῦσα οὖν ἑαυτὴν τῷ κινδύνῳ ἐξῆλθεν δι’ ἁγάπην τῆς 
πατρίδος. 

πίοι πὶ ET 2275055357; πεῖ, 61:2". 

PieGlem. 9:5"; 14:4}. 

ae. Ὁ: 77“. 

Germ, Vis. III, 725". 

y) That of act to purpose or result: 

I Clem. 58:11, ὑπακούσωμεν οὖν τῷ παναγίῳ καὶ ἐνδόξῳ ὀνόματι αὐτοῦ 
φυγόντες. ... ἀπειλάς. 

PClem. 58:1". 

Barn. 1:74. 

6) The aorist participle as part of the object of verbs of perception: 
The aorist participle is very rarely used as an integral element of the 


493 


22 HISTORICAL AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES 


object of a verb of perception, and represents an action which, when it is 
directly perceived, is coincident in time with that of the principal verb. 
It represents the action so perceived as a simple event without reference 
to progress: 

Herm. Sim. IX, 13:43, AdOous εἶδες. . . . petvavtas εἰς τὴν οἰκοδομήν. 

Sim. IX, 13:43; 18:33. 

3. The aorist participle of undefined time-relation.—The aorist par- 
ticiple is sometimes used where the context does not make it clear 
whether the action denoted by the participle occurs before, at the time 
of, or after, the action of the principal verb: 

Mart. 9:17, καὶ τὸν μὲν εἰπόντα οὐδεὶς εἶδεν. 

E Clem, τα 327516575. 

Barn. 5:2". 

Diogn. 2: 25. ἢ 

Mart. 9: τ΄. 

Herm. Sim. IX, 12:77. 


Il. THE PERFECT PARTICIPLE 


The perfect participle is used of action which at the time of the 
principal verb stands completed. 

1. The perfect participle of past action and resulting state.—The perfect 
participle is most frequently used of action in which the reference is 
double, the participle implying a past action and affirming a result 
existing at the time of the principal verb: 

I Clem. 16:17', ὁρᾶτε, ἄνδρες ἀγαπητοί, τίς ὃ ὑπογραμμὸς ὃ δεδομένος ἡμῖν. 

T Clem. 13:;..2: 15, 8; 3:47; 10:32"; 162177} 17:17} 18:37; So) eye 
gid", 2°73, 202.2%, 13, 45, 67, 117; 25:37, 5°; 27:57; 30:55 O “pega 
35247, 573 30227; 39:77; 402173, 2%, 4΄, δ᾽, 40:55, 23; 43.077 99 2 σον 
44:27 2-3, 34, 57675 45:3" 7, 4"; 47:4: 7; 48:27, 4%, 50:77; 51:27; §2:4%; 
BANE ot Ogg sats’ 8:1, 2735) 50:1, 2. 3.40, Oncor ° 029 ΟΣ 
65:2: 64:10. OSE, 20s 

ΠΟΙΕΙ͂ 42545 ΤΉ τον τὴ 25} 75; ee as 

Bar. 1:37, τ 773 2:10 35, 3:2.) 5.) 4:7; 190.) 14°; 5:9) ΠΝ 
Τοῖς: ἘΠῚ, ὁ; MA 24, Ibe Ant ΟΣ Benge Oak yh kos Τ΄: 

Diop: 2:29. 3 8% gt 45) grat 2s) Bak iets 3") 105) 92 21: Oe 
Oat este 

Eph. a?) ας 251 2 5 yess π Ὁ; Onn’. 0 2.; 12a": A 2s ae 
2 ΖΕ: 

* There seems to be no adequate explanation of the aorist here. Stephanus read 
it future. The only known MS has been destroyed. 

494 


SYNTAX OF PARTICIPLE IN THE APOSTOLIC FATHERS 23 


i OTR CASO JG (WM 6: τ ὙΠ Satine Be ar 

rall: το τς: 

ns 9.2.5: τ pt Bnet Ὁ ἘΠ OF: 

ΗΠ 151|} 15..3. 9.6.. τ 13 23.4.8. τῦῦ, ΟΣ ἘΠ oper 

meee 123: 113. 6. 8:9. 51: Gres os) ὙΤΈ τ: 

Pairs 1: 17. 

ἘΠῚ τὸ τὸ 4 26:45. 06:15; (9 s2" 73227. 

Ree gs Aes 8234: rota arate τὰ 1} wy rns Ὁ. 25} 18:25; 
gatigt 5, 

ΕΠ τ 15. 10}... 2: τὸ TL ones EN £5320 λῖς St gts a2 ἘΣ, G48: 
Beg. 852; 4:35; 5:17, 24, οἷ; G:25:4, 477; 7:14, 57; 8:47, 77; 9:8"; 
ements) 12:25 4:73’ 42. TV, 1237, 435-22 τ 35) 2.::5 5.68. 

ee Tes, TE) 32272) Vy. 2697; VILL, 12203; LX τα: τὴ 2 XX, 
eee ates ΧΙ τοὺ; ΧΙ του, 275 2247; 42? 3 aes) 8:23; 
6:2". - 
ΕΠ ot at gts ΠΠπῚ τι 2:25, 82 324) OF τ τ τι θεν asa, 
Soe > τ:3"; 0:27; VI, τ δὴ, 2:3. Ὁ, 434,77; 5:74; VII, 1:47, 5°, 
> a 1: 23. 4"; τ Fig 5: ae 81. 3.4. 5.: 4:2 a 47 1.3. ἘΣ σ; 4. 5. δὰ 
ΠΣ 57; 023%, 4, 54, OS 7728, 45 Orr 7, 45) 9217; 
ΠΥ ΡΝ; 1993, τοῖς 2247, 2°, At 45 gam * 3. gt: 1:15. St, Gt 45 
meme 3 0537, 4°, 81; 7205, 4) 8227, 47, 575 Qi 5% 74S, 78: 5: 7; 
Me ey) 1224" 4, 5°; 13:37, 40° 4, 5%, OF 7, δ᾽ ὁ. O7; 14:33, 55 15:1"; 
eee er a) 574 03: 17297. TB gt, 235: δ. 7 gt 24-5 41. 20: 13..4..25- 
ΠΗ 52. 723... 24: 23>. 26737, δ΄, 65: 25: τῆ; 20237, 47 7:3; gost: 3:3; 

ens τ ΟΣ Δ: 11217, ταῖς 152173. 

2. The perfect participle of existing state—The perfect participle is 
sometimes used when the attention is directed wholly to the present 
resulting state, the past action of which it is the result being left out of 
thought. This usage occurs most frequently in a few verbs which use 
the perfect in this sense only: 

I Clem. 13:17, καὶ ποιήσωμεν τὸ γεγραμμένον. 

elem, Ὁ 10°'7; τΆ: 12.4.0 16:34; 21:1. 25:35; 54: τὸ.) 47,5"; 45399; 
57273 58:14; 59:23, 3°°; Go: 15. 

Metal 2: 2: OT} ει": ὌΞΟΣ: BOTS TEs 3 ts τὸ: 1" 

Ἐπ στ τ Ae 755) 3207s Ast, 21 Os 92: 7:3: (TORE E se τὴ 7121: 
19:64. 

ioen. ers 3: 25345 2.:.41. 125.3%. 

Hie αὐ: 175 τῇ: 25: τς: 2". 

Diao, 32/235 τὰ 11:2. τ: 34. 

Weal: τ΄. 

495 


24 HISTORICAL AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES 


ROM. (27; 7073". 

Philad; 7:2". 

ΘΙ ΕΠ προ; ask 

ΡΟ or 3355 ἢ 28: (OSE 

Philip. τ τ; 1 πεῖν: (Gan: 

Mart 2:2. 5; 622": 

Herm: 15:7 2 τ 283) Th 2:1": TLR ar 22: ΟΞ ΤΣ ἩΠ 2: ΤΟΣ 

Mand. V; 2:37; EX, 1:67; XT 7:29: 

Sim. V, 3:77; VILL, 2:17; 222%; 4:27; EX, 223°; 121 12a 

16 5: 107. 

3. The perfect participle for the pluperfect.—The perfect participle is 
occasionally used as a pluperfect to denote a state existing antecedent to 
the time of the principal verb. The action of which it is the result is, of 
course, still earlier: 

Mart. 8:12, κατέπαυσε τὴν προσευχήν, μνημονεύσας ἁπάντων Kal τῶν 
πώποτε συμβεβληκότων αὐτῷ. 

Barn. τό: 9. 

Mart. 8: τ. 

Herm. Sim? VEE, ΟΣ EX 524". 


IV. THE FUTURE PARTICIPLE 


The future participle represents an action as future from the point of 
view of the principal verb, and so is an exception to the general timeless- 
ness of the participle. It is rarely used by the Apostolic Fathers. 

I Clem. 12:22, καὶ ἐξέπεμψεν ἄνδρας τοὺς συλληψομένους αὐτούς. 

T.Clem. τ 2.522: 

II Clem. 5:4". 

Diogn:: 2" 1°; 1077* 

Philip: :73° τὴ: 

The present participle μέλλων followed by an infinitive of another 
verb is used as a periphrasis for a future participle of the latter verb, but 
with a somewhat different range of use. That which is to take place 
may be expressed by either form, but μέλλων is usually employed of 
events that are certain or destined to occur. The future participle is not 
used in the genitive absolute, but μέλλων is. μέλλων is not used to 
express the purpose of an action, and is used, as the future participle is 
not, to express an intention without designating the intended action as 
the purpose of another act: 

Barn. 7:107, οὐκοῦν ἴδε τὸν τράγον τὸν τύπον τοῦ μέλλοντος πάσχειν 
Ἰησοῦ. 

490 


SYNTAX OF PARTICIPLE IN THE APOSTOLIC FATHERS 25 


ἘΠ lem: 2495": 42:45; 55768. 

ΕΠ ἘΠ ΩΣ τοῦ; O27. Ot; 7:25. δ΄, τῶῦ; 12:1, 23. 

Pol, 872". 

Mart. 13:37. 

erm: Vis. IT, 2:87; III, 5:53. 

Mand. TV, 3:37°5; XII, 3:3". 

Seen εις 25. V, 0:3": VILL, 6:27; EX, 2:44) 57; 3:2", 4? 33 6:87; 
ΤΩ - 3.7. 26: 6°. 


497 


CHAPTER II 


LOGICAL FORCE 


In respect to logical force, participles may be classified as adjective, 
adverbial, and substantive.* 


I. THE ADJECTIVE PARTICIPLE 


The adjective participle may be used attributively or predicatively. 
When used attributively it may be either restrictive or explanatory. It 
is in the attributive position, the use and force of the article with the 
participle being the same as with the ordinary adjective. 

1. The restrictive attributive participle-—An attributive participle may 
be used to define or identify its subject, pointing out what person or 
thing is meant. It is then equivalent to a restrictive relative clause.f 

I Clem. 1!, 7 ἐκκλησία τοῦ θεοῦ ἡ παροικοῦσα ῥώμην. 

Τ᾿ ΟἸδηι. 1°75 ταῦ. 3, 23: ττΆ, 47; 0:13, 47; 12:27; ὃΤᾺὉ 2. ἘΠ᾽ 
15:8. 175. 5. 10:2"; 20:2, 3°, 4%, 67, ΤΙ"; 21:2", 5 4; 2202 ae 
24:17, 27; 25:1", 3° 7; 26:37; 28:15; 32:1"; 33:37 7) 35:47, 11) gor’, 
at, 4X; 41:15, 25; 43:24; 44:25, 5% 7, 67; 46:6", 47:47; 48:27; 51:2; 
62:47) 542275 §5:57; 57:1 58:17, 273 50:27; Or: 1% ὦ, 25; ΟΠ 1 ΠΝ 

11 ΟἸΕΙΙΣ 1:21: (220% 794) 21 Δι, ἘΣ ὍΣΤΙΣ Τοῦ 5. ΠΝ 
EAS 13, 27,338 ἘΠ:1ὸΥῦὙ09. 4. 10:2. ;ὄ 175175. 10:25; 19:25, 275. ΖΟΕ ΤΣ 

Barn. 2:10° 7; 3:59; 4:9, 147; 6:97, 187; 7233-4, 47) δὲ, ττῦ συν 
31, 4's 0:81; το δ᾽, 10%; 11:5", 67; 12°77; 13°77; 14:81; Το meee 
ΤΟ ΤΡ ΟΣ 

Του. 2:17" 3, 27, 35, 41;.2:25; §:2', 3-, 10°; 7:41; 8: 22. ΒΘ ΟΝ ΠΗ; 
ἘΠΕ fe a 


*This is the terminology employed for the classification of participles as to 
logical force in Burton’s New Testament Moods and Tenses. Goodwin and others 
classify participles as attributive, circumstantial, and supplementary. A terminology 
based upon the assertive function of words in the sentence would be more satis- 
factory, especially in the adverbial class; but as yet such a one has not been worked 
out. 

{τι is not clear whether some attributive participles are restrictive or explana- 
tory, and they are put into one class or the other according to the emphasis they 
seem to express. 


26 [498 


SYNTAX OF PARTICIPLE IN THE APOSTOLIC FATHERS 27 


Sipe Tos Ones χυτὰ ΟΝ 19. LEE Fy ΤᾺ 2. Led, 18. I. 

Meeew ta: 222007, OT); τὸν δὲ; 12:1}. 14.37. 

forall: x7; 12:1". 

OTE ee SG Oe aa fs bse © Tk 

ee eT, 25. 6: τὸς Ser τα at. 

ΕΠ τ. 2:25, 02275 8:1; 1133"; 13:1": 

Pol. 8:17. 

ΗΠ τ. 3529.) 472"; ἼΣΩΣ; 9: 275, 18:2". 

ΒΕ τ ΡΟ 5s Ὁ 24 TOL 2k Ss rE Tor 4... (125275375) 33°3 ) 14:35 
Chua 18: τῷ. 

ΠΡ ΠΕ ΤΠ τ 86. os Ato 2: 15: TD gsAt yt 2 8a gat. grate TIT 
ΠΥ 4 τ 25: 5: τ|.3. 24, 3°; 7224, 3°75, Ο:45 7,57, OF, 775) 13:2"; 
Beeeeene τ 5 2:25. 47, 57; 3:47 4, 5, 67; V, 1:52. 

ἘΠ τ τὸ 55: V, prot: oS. EX, 1537) 45, Τὸ; Χο agi: 7°33 
ΠΥ τ OF 7, 77, OF 2.3, 12, 10%, 17" 7, 20°; TL: 2% 7532475 
ΠΗ aes, 2; 6: τ΄, 27-7: 5, 

τ τῷ η15. 8: ΤΠ τῖτο; IV, 1:27: 4-4, 8; V,.2:4°;.97, 117; 
ΝΠ A τ; 52374; 6: 55. 775 7:27, 3; VI, 1:47, 5°53 2:2}, 65: 3; 
ΕΠ 4S. VT, 5:43, 57; VILL, 1:27, τὺ; 2217-3, 27-73; 37274, 
memory; τος" 6:27, 545 9:47; το τα, 37, UX, 2:3°; 3:17 Ὁ, 4.5, δ᾽; 
Semmens, At 78, 5%; Gra" 3, 45; 7:0", 25) 9:41, 5°; To:rt 4, 2%; 
eae ΩΣ 7775 13: 59,677; 14:37; 15:17, 3° 7, 477; 16:37, 0%; 
eee tS 5"* 19337; 20:2"; 21:47; 22:41; 23217; 24:4; 26:17, 
ΡΠ 81. 2721", 282577, 7: 20:47 ἢ; 30: 1° 7. 

ΝΙΝ τοὺ: 4210"; 7:17, 2°; 11317; 4*, 7°, 05. 10°, ταῦ, 12". 

2. The explanatory attributive participle—An attributive adjective 
participle may be used to describe a person or thing already identified. 
It is then equivalent to an explanatory relative clause: 

Magn. 8:28, ὅτι els θεός ἐστιν, ὃ φανερώσας ἑαυτὸν διὰ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ 
τοῦ υἱοῦ αὐτοῦ. 

ΠΡ ΙΕ ΤΟ ΤΠ, το: 8} τῦ:2.. 604. 127. BOTT"; 20710"; 423.1377"; 
Ὁ; 5222"; 56:15’. “; 59:27, 3... 516. 18...62:.25.. 35; 03535 
6431". 
ἘΠΕ ΟΙΈΤ or 205 7; εν 773 ΟΡ ΣΤ ΕΞ 27: ΤᾺ: τὸ ag sity 27, 9:0: 
το το τη:|6; 18:55; 20: δ΄. 

ΒΕ το: 7:0} 7: 8; 52%, Τοῦ ΞΟ 16. Ὁ, 12}; 7251) £05 Oras 
eee Τ2:.; 14:2΄, 53° 4; 162095 21:51: 

itor: To: 2:25 τῷ 72-2; 6:67; 827% 2; 0:25, Tatts gees 
ΒΡ 6). τι. >, 65. 7°. 

ΠΡ Π τό γτι 7; 2.525: 2:20) 5:1}: 7 2: ) 8: τὸ; ὉΣΤΟ; 12:25) 21:2: 

499 


28 HISTORICAL AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES 


Macon? 231%, 023° (625359725 2oS 5.:29. 4: ΤΟΣ Ὁ’ eee 

Drall. 293 αὐτὰς; 22975 3:17; 5207) 8227; 9227; ΤΟΣ ΤΡ ΕΠ συ ΠΕ ΤῊ 

ἘΠ ΤῊ 5. 124 Ὁ: 

Plaid... Ort ΤΣ 

Smyrn./ 3°45 0507) 2s eats nae 15: 

Pols as) 1202s oat ote: Gate eres 

Philip. το τ 52. 0: 2:53, 53023, 

Mart. 43317; 5:17; 6:27; 923%; 12:25; 14:13: τό 2 "Ὁ 
ΤΟΣ; 20: 1.025 

Herm. Vis. I, τ: 61: 2.5:.Ὁ. 9:23, 21. 25; 3:17, 47 Ὁ; II, 2:2; τοῦ Ὅουσδοῖῖν 
1237, 9% 5; 3237; 42335. 15. 62675" 8:25. 41.2; ‘Q2175, τὸ nn 
DV gsr σον wants. 

Mand. ‘I, τ το 5. 9:5:.6. TT, rer, 377; 1Π 1a; eee 
2,6: 5: tee am GL τοῖα oP ge ΤΠ ae 5: τ ots 

Sim. TL, 1:7%; IV, τοῖς 25: V3; 2:2", 48: 6:57; ΕΖ 
VEEL, 1: τὸ; 2537; 2:29. 8. 27:2. 4τοΟηιῖῖτ: 6:22: DS, ταῦ, 4h Ὁ πὸ 
323% 6: 65: 7:15; 925° 4; 10257} F720"; 20: Es. 2025"; 2250 ee 
{= Aor go 32" ἀπ 2022. 

Didier?) TOl5es SLES eo 22 1 ee 

3. The attributive-adverbial participle—An attributive participle 
equivalent to a relative clause may at the same time convey subordinately 
some one or even more than one of the ideas of time, cause, etc., expressed 
by the adverbial participle. It then partakes of the nature of both the 
adjective participle and the adverbial participle. See II Clem. 17:1', 53; 
Barn. 7:34; Trall. 3:27; Eph. 5:17; Rom. 3:3'; Herm. Vis. ΠΡ τ 2. 
Simi) Ve τος: TEX 252: 25: 

4. The predicative adjective participle——A participle may be used as 
the predicate of εἰμί or other copulative verbs. When so used it is 
always in the predicate position, and may be: 

a) A predicative participle retaining its adjective force: 

Herm. Vis. I, 2:41, ἔστιν μὲν τοῖς δούλοις τοῦ θεοῦ ἡ τοιαύτη βουλὴ 
ἁμαρτίαν ἐπιφέρουσα. 

ΤΙ Clem) 162375. στ δι οῦθῦ: 24 ἤν Ga Ἐπ: 

Barn. 12: τοῦ. 

Diogn. 2: 2.5 3. 

ἘΡΠ τος 2.2: 9.. ἘΣ Ὶ1Τ 2. sen, 

Marn5227375r. 

Smyrn. 8:2". 

Mart. 12: 25. 

Herm. Vis. I, 1:34; 2:41; III, 2:81:2:3,. 4:23. 

500 


SYNTAX OF PARTICIPLE IN THE APOSTOLIC FATHERS 29 


EtG το; Χ eds) sek, τ: 128: ΧἼὙῪΠ otis 7:21. 4s 42, 
Pease Pet Vie ret” VELL ΤΟΣ ὍΣ, Tot, D7 41S s 2.:7..3: 41: 59.5, 
Ὅτ} 40 8; Fea Or Ty, 3... DIO 979,885 
ΕΝ 5 5:83; τὸ: 41; O° 2-4; τ8:25; 20:1; 25: 2's. 24:17 2829". 
Did. 2: 5°. 
b) A part of a periphrastic verb form: 
The copula is to be supplied in a few cases: 
Sim. IX, 4:2!, ἡ δὲ πέτρα καὶ 7 πύλη ἣν βαστάζουσα ὅλον τὸν πύργον. 
The present participle is combined: 
(1) With the present indicative: 
Sim: IT, 3:23. 
(2) With the imperfect indicative: 
I Clem. 2: 1°. 
Barn. 11: 10%. 
Ξε TIT, τὸ οἷ; 11223. 
mame τοῦ) 5:3: TX. 422%: 21: τ΄. 
(3) With the future indicative: 
Mand. V, 2:8". 
emu, 41:25; IX, 13:2". 
(4) With the present subjunctive: 
Eph. 5:37. 
Philad. 3: 23. 
The perfect participle is combined: 
(1) With the present indicative: 
I Clem. 40:5". 
Barn. τὸν Ε΄; 18:1". 
Dien: 23375 5:1. 
Philip: 1:34; 13:27. 
Were, 2° 27;)- 4:34-8:97) 9:87: 
Bumewl, 2:44; VILL, 3:65; 4:26} TX,)13: 44; 18:25: ort4ts 23:2". 
(2) With the imperfect indicative: 
Barn. 11:9". 
ieetno- as. 1Π oon: TEE τ 22: 2:0.) το 13; τῇ: 25. 
pm τι γι; ἸΕΝ τ: τοῦ 2:21. 2.01.5. Ὁ}73: 5: 
Did: 9:4. 
(3) With the future indicative: 
Clem. 10237; 58: 2°. 
Vis. 13:47. 
eam: PT 5:02: V, 4:2?°4. 
(4) With the present subjunctive: 
501 


30 HISTORICAL AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES 


i Clem. 35:'5*. 

{1 Clem: ge5?9: x7 43%: 

Eph. 2:24. 

(5) With the present optative: 

I Clem. 43: 23. 

In one passage according to a MS the aorist participle is combined 
with the future indicative: 

II Clem. 17:76. (A fails here. C [H] gives the aorist, δόντες. 
The Syriac MS, however, represents the present, δίδοντες. Lightfoot, 
Funk, and Blass adopt the present.) 

The number of the periphrastic verb forms in the Apostolic Fathers 
would be slightly decreased by rejecting a few doubtful cases. Two-thirds 
of the periphrases, 40 instances, are in Hermas, which fills about three- 
eighths of the volume of the Apostolic Fathers, leaving 23 instances in five- 
eighths. Three of the latter are in quotations from the Old Testament. 

It appears by comparison with the list of W. H. Simcox (The Language 
of the New Testament, pp. 131 f.) that the periphrastic verb form occurs 
about one-half oftener in the New Testament than in the Apostolic 
Fathers. The contrast is very much greater in the case of the present 
participle combined with some form of the imperfect indicative. The 
periphrasis in this case occurs nearly four times as frequently in the New 
Testament as in the Apostolic Fathers, where it is limited to Hermas 
except I Clem. 2:18 and Barn. τα τοῦ. The latter is in a quotation from 
the Old Testament. 

5. The adjective participle used substantively—The subject of the 
restrictive attributive participle is often omitted. The participle is then 
an adjective participle used substantively, with any of the uses of a 
substantive in the sentence. Such a participle usually has the article, 
but not invariably: 

I Clem. 3:11, καὶ ἐπετελέσθη τὸ γεγραμμένον. 

1 Clem. 135 τ925;. 3:17 7, 47; 62373 1:32} δ΄, 6; δ: O72" το 
11:15. γ᾽; 12: 57,973; 13507-3, 4; 14:2. 2 7 το Slt 4, eae 
9° £0"; E7517, 3° 10217; 2024s 21: Ὅτ 7,8; 22: 0 ., 85; 2355 
25:2); 20:15: 27:25, δ΄, 28: 2 ἄν 30:45 O73, Grd » 3) 52 e ne 
BF 35225 307, ἅ΄, 5... O23, Fp 201... 0 97: 2°." ον 
3°75 39°57, 77, Ὁ; 40247; 41:27, τ} 422475, 4: τὸ ΠΝ 
373,453 45:17, 37, 4%) 6, 777735, Os) 405275 47:7} 48 :4~ eee 
§0:3", 7.» 1: Ἐν, 2, 31; 53:43 5432.,,3.,) 4°; 55:17; 50:1 τῦν ee 
58:13, 274; δΌ: 1.313. 4 Ft, τοῦ" 60115, 2713" 140; OL: Ὁ oo ΚΟ ΕΠ, 
6212, 27° MOR CE 2: 

502 


SYNTAX OF PARTICIPLE IN THE APOSTOLIC FATHERS 91 


ἘΠῚ ΟΊ ΘΠ τ τὸ" ets) 27 9: ΠΟ Ὁ, 2: 2.; Δι)... ραν Aaa Ss 
7:1... Ὁ τὸ, OF; Tors; 11:0"; 13:47 45 (1424) 152273; 4", 5° 3; 
16:14, an: ἘΠῚ, as. 74-5: = ΕΝ, fort ars 20: 22. 

es hates ὁ 81: 2: τὸ, 25, 10 7..2:2.., Ὁ, ὅδ᾽ 45 15... 21..05; TOF, 
eee. 2.3" 3. ἀτ΄͵, 13": 7; Poi A APs OF:Oy τὸ; Be Ἐ 23. 8.0", 11: 
Νὴ; πο 2", 41:5. οἷν τοῦτον Tat et Sy TLIO 12207, 25; 
SCS et) 3s) τοι δῖ: 916237, Tot 2.3.5: Ὑη:2: 1. 18:2; 0:2 4,4, 
eee O° 1.5. γγ᾽- 20:57, 21 τ. 21:12.3, 27, 

SMM τον τυ te 525. gkoas Seto) engi he ΟΣ Tye GLO, 
ΝΠ υ 10:2", 37, 67:5, 73-4-5) Bt. great 4, 23, 57, δὲ; T2275, 3%, 
6 4-5, 82, 

Der 225 aoa igenss) ravers) gga? ss! gest ots 16S 2™ Ὁ; 
eee τῶ: 1". το αἴ, 37. 

το τ... 62275 8.:25. 5: Ὅτ το. 

See 5:01: τ. 2. στονο: "τ ieee 

meets 4s) 0:21 22: 7-77: 01:23; 10:2". 

Pats 1223; 2:20: 6:27; 8:12; ττ:18. 

τ τ ππ:25. OE 7, 21: sav. meres Birks grat, 

Rens, τε Boyt) ἀν Reet Fe G2 ets B13, 2F. 

Philip. 1: 13-4; ae. 2, ai i982 \ gs 975 5. Gat ets 72) * 

Pear Ser 9 (OE Dt 5 AT) ἡ 13.5.5 τ 55 6 1503: 6. 98s” un siQ8. 9s 
ΠΝ 1.5. Ὁ 1. 703975. 12515513533} Igixt; 17:25. 3°"; 1822?" 3; 
pee 20: 113. 21: 22:3, 

πὴ ἢ τοῖς 65-4) 855: TE 52:61. Bt 24» τ 5.3. oF) yt DT, 
5.: τῦ, a. ac Sa ee 423, ee tiga G22, 23-6. am Be as Bras, 
nen, 3342 00:25. 91.5.45. 5% 367; r2ac4q™ 3; TV, 226° 7; 3:57, 65. 

ΠΕ ΤΠ τὶ 27 9:5. 14 κα: 254. Gt 4s TTT ΣΤ wet) pre 5: ὅς 
Mra 386 Aer τ Vio atat 2, 28: ΠῚ Σ, ats τ ΠΣ 
eee <4? VEIT. τ 4’ G2, τὸῦ 1, τ )ῦ, EX, 1:57, 65,83) 123. XX, 
eg; 3:37; ΧΤ 1: 15. 4.5, rs 8:3 Ὁ RED gata gneiss Ou 

ΕΝ τ: T9237) 63) 63,85. Ὁ 5) τὸν 53; EEE Ὑτῦ τ ν᾿ 
ΠΟ: V, 2:93; 322%, 728; 2:4; 5:2 7°35 VE, 123%, 4; 
zg? 3, 43; 821... ἤιαπν ἘΣ oe: Tee ae 3, ἘΞ ΘΕῈ VII, τι 4. 5, Bu 
VIII, ek, 6?; 2:55 rie ori: Δ 25: a 33° 4. Ges! wae ΠΣ δ 81... 4:4": = 
Bees 6. 6'; Gk, ὍΣ» at 4", ἘΠ Gt Oars το τῷ, ἀ5..3: δ: 2:5. gel: aa 
πο τὺ ...5. Ὁ: 17 4.45.1: τοῦ», 3 34; TX ge 4552175) ὁ: 25. Ὁ; 
ΠΥ oes) 77, 8:2", 537; 45, 5° Ὁ 7 ὙΠ" eee gre ἘΦ: 02 ὩΣ 
epee gs?) 5227s, 67; 1522" 7; 16:54; tsa 5 5. Ὁ 20 Ὁ 80 το τ, ΩΣ; 
ΡΈΕΙ os 15° 9-53) 992 0, 2; 22:1} 2 ..,2.;,.4.} Asta 25.0 26:13, 
3 01. 27:1. 2") 2"; 28217, 2 4΄ς 20: 1.3. 4. 29: "2: 

; 503 


92 HISTORICAL AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES 


Did. 1:91. 4. Raat ae 2.121: aes; 4:1, 27, σευ τ 8:: Sioa Ws qr 28s 
ΟΣ ΤΙ: 2 δῖ: Tat ry 2} ΤᾺ 2» ὩΣ, ΘΙ ΤΟ rar age. 


Il. THE ADVERBIAL PARTICIPLE 


The adverbial participle logically modifies, as well when in the 
absolute construction as otherwise, some other verb of the sentence in 
which it occurs, being equivalent to an adverbial phrase or clause 
denoting time, condition, concession, cause, purpose, means, manner, or 
attendant circumstance. 

While the adverbial participle stands in all these relations, it does not 
definitely and distinctly express them. The different uses interlace some- 
times, and more than one classification may then be assigned. We note: 

1. The adverbial participle of time, equivalent to a temporal clause.— 
Rom. 4:2!, ἵνα μὴ κοιμηθεὶς βαρύς τινι γένωμαι. 

I Clem. 4:12"; δ᾽ τῦ, 2; 11: 1%, 273 12:27, 472; 572574 peg eee 
4", 5°; 33:7} 40:45; 43:2" 7, τὸ; 51:47; 5352" 7; 55:77, 4a ee 
60: 4" 3, 

ΤΙ Clem. 1:4", 63> 4, 73,8"; 2237,.74; 1225: 75) 13:37:47) to eee 
Paha, LOne rs 

Barn. 2:37, 773.3257; 4:05 5:77, 104; 6:12"; 7:3", 57:4, 6° oem 
£5537; 12:27. 7) τὸ 52:8) Of; 152972, 8"5) 1652",)0";. ΤΟΣ ΤΟ 

Diogn.' 520673 ὁ:8᾽, 05 2; 10:3"; 11:2: 

Bph. 1 ios) τῆ τ) τ: res τοῦς 

Maon.it:173- 9737: 

Trall. 1:2". 

ΠΟΤ 4.25: 6: 152 Ὁ 0. 2:5 3 76 2. 5: 

Philad: τ τὸ 8:2". 

Smym. g: 27: ?. 

Pol. 3528, 

Philip: 7:21" 

Mart. 2:2. 4: 2:1|: 2:1; gat) 27-43) 655% ὁ: 752% ΣΝ 
Ὁ: 14. ὍΣ gt Ss ogOLIT 230 12:2}. 21. 5:51. ag 97°) 15 ee 
7:12} LT Oe τὴν» 20: 13: 21,5 61} 3.2. 22}: ΓΝ, 20: 

Herm. ΝΊΒΕῚ, 1:25) 37,47; 2::21:.5: 42377; ἘΠ 315, 45; 2η τ ΠΣ τ 
ΠῚ 1227 2; εἰ 5.0.7. B87 3s, 223%: 321749) 21 725°) 5? 25 Oo 
12: 26:5. 41: Ἴ2:25: IVE rest At 2 Gta etek oa 

Mand. TI, τ 53, 65; TU, -1:3* 2; 1V,.2:6% 3:77; V, 52450 ΟΣ 
EX, 297,875 28,3997 5-4) KE, τ 8; 68,934.20": 75 ae eee 

Sim? 1, 1:2: Lor at 2-3, 33047: 2,67; 1ΠῚ τ 253 Ν το τε ee 
42-3, ἴ tol; 62682: 3.097; VIE. 2247-2: 353217; 5:4t-2;) Vee 

504 


SYNTAX OF PARTICIPLE IN THE APOSTOLIC FATHERS 33 


ees 0:2 2 7 τ} Regt Ost. ao. τι 2 eds TM pote! 4 oat: 
725%; 9:7" 45 Torr, 6; 11:4’, 6; 13:77, 84; 14:39 4; 16:53; 17:47 3; 


18: 


eee 208s 22:91: 2ae at. 20.: 0 Ὁ 28:4 
Pa το τὸ Acer ὋΣ 45) TEs? 12:10; 19:0} τῆι τὸ; TOMAS. 
2. The adverbial participle of condition, equivalent to a conditional 


clause.— 


II Clem. 8:4! 5: 3, ὥστε, ἀδελφοί, ποιήσαντες τὸ θέλημα τοῦ πατρὸς Kai 


τὴν σάρκα ἁγνὴν τηρήσαντες καὶ τὰς ἐντολὰς τοῦ κυρίου φυλάξαντες ληψόμεθα 
ζωὴν αἰώνιον. 


ΠΡ τ a Sts ὁπ; 8:21 5.5: grat: ΠΣ ΟΣ; Tair, ἐδ. 

Barn. 2:5. 

τ το 4 2; ἀτι}}; 12:8": , 

Magn. 1:37: 3. 

Semen 2:2": 7: 77: 2, 

Philad. το: 2“. 

Smyrn. 9:23; 11:33. 

ποτ ΝΠ. 11’ sett TEL, 25%: TV, τοῦτο; VI, 2:10" 2; VIL 


meee, 01. ΧΊΤ᾽ or: 17. 


memes eGo: VIL, 1:3" 2. DX, 2:6"; 26:47; 28:77. 
ies εὐ: 22:37. 
3. The adverbial participle of concession, equivalent to a concessive 


clause.—The concessive force is emphasized by καίπερ in seven instances, 
or in 25 per cent of the occurrences: 


Herm. Vis. III, 1:0', θέλοντος οὖν pov καθίσαι εἰς τὰ δεξιὰ μέρη οὐκ 


m” ’ 
εἰασέν με. 


2.21: 


ΠΟΙ ΕἸ 707°; 1632"; 1757; 44:6. 

II Clem. 11:23; 20:4". 

ee τι ἘΣ; 1226", 74. 

mem. 516%; 62577; 10:77. 

Trall. 3: 37. 

Smyrn. 3:2}; τα 17. 

ΕΠ ΜΠ. 1:3". 

Mart, 12:25; 17:15. 

Bev. Vis: TIL, 1:91; 2:09; IV, 2:45. 

ΕΠ cas VELL 7:τῸ- 62455: i955) 2520s ἘΧ 25 τὸ τὰ Ἐπ: 
275 

4. The adverbial participle of cause, equivalent to a causal clause.—as 


(ὥσπερ) accompanies the participle 16 times: 


Trall. 3:31, ἀγαπῶν ὑμᾶς φείδομαι. 
MeN 7:2... OLS). 0:2. ΤΙ ΖΕ; το 25: Sorry 20: 10 21:2: 


Memes 53:8}: 28:2}. 4. 40:1": 7. 


505 


94 HISTORICAL AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES 


ΤΠ Glens 27750277 sre eGes OSes. Umea: 

Bais. £¢2%) 52-9522 το σον, O29. nee Tals: 10. 0΄- 

Diora: 332 4:25: Πᾶν Ost 12..5., OF, 

Boke 7219; S217) Ores Ly 22. 

Magn. 83": torn? ἀπ: τὸ. 

Prall wot" ae ets ies ΠΤ ΖΝ: 

Rom. 3937252275) O23": 

Pholad.\729%° πο 19.1". 2. 

Smyrm, 471" 1231". 

ῬΟΙ αἰ 13:7: 6:74. 

ἘΠΊ: τ Σ᾽ 4333) gers 1; ρα Os Te. 

ΠΥ 91 12 γι, τ τὸ. 

Hem Vis. ΠῚ 8: απ 2 ἽΝ, 14 ἢ 2:7... 

Mand. ΠῚ, τ 21: V,. 2:6"; ΙΧ αἴτὸ,. τοῦ; XJ, 2:44; scot ΤΙΝ 

Sim, I, 1:6% 7; TL, 1:33; IV, 1:67, 77; V, 2:41: Vi ΣΝ 
ΤΟ ΤΣ (TES Ts ΝΘ gat ὅὲιοῦ, Osis, 20:25, 22: 26 

Did. 3: 107. 

5. The adverbial participle of purpose, equivalent to a final clause.— 

Herm. Vis. V, 1:31, ἔδοξα ἐγὼ ὅτι πάρεστιν ἐκπειράζων pe. 

Pi Clemiy7at 2) 20°00". (G5: by O22 2%. 

ΠῚ Clem. £43372" ro: 13 

Barn. 1:73. 

Diogn. 12:37, 53. 

Philip: τοῦ τὸ 

Herm. ‘Vis. τι)". 

Mand. TV, 3:37. 

6. The adverbial participle of means.— 

Herm. Vis. III, 3:51, ἐκζητῶν οὖν εὑρίσκεις τὴν ἀλήθειαν. 

TE Clem: 6:22: 7:4: 75: τθ 1; Οἱ :2-. 

EE Clem5 Ὁ: τ, :3,,. ΤΟ: 1%, 

Bae. 527 kOe EL es ss. τῆ τοῦ" τ 81. 

Diogn τ τ ἘΠ 4557s 72". 

Eph. 2:23. 

Trall: 2:33: 

Rom. 4:3%. 

ΘΎΕΙ 4 2s 7 15: 

Mart. 4:14. 

Hern, Vis) hy 3027 EDO 25s) 4.12 a wae Gis 8 ταῦ τ 

Mand, Io τ 2 ἸΝ 2-2) (VE τι ΚΓ Oc au, 

Sim ΠΠ τ 82-3742  Ὁ:2.. 2. VES τ Ὁ 

506 


SYNTAX OF PARTICIPLE IN THE APOSTOLIC FATHERS 35 


7. The adverbial participle of manner, describing the manner in which 
the action denoted by the verb is done.—Participles that give fuller defini- 
tion, content, etc., of the principal verb are placed here to avoid more 
detailed classification. 

The following particles of manner occur with the participle, the 
instances being 23 in all: as", ὥσπερ", καθάπερ', ws av’ (Barn. 6:11). 

Barn. 19:11 3, φυλάξεις ἅ παρέλαβες, μήτε προστιθεὶς μήτε ἀφαιρῶν. 

Mer 2s Ὁ: 15; 8:2. ΙΕ 15: ΤΗΣ, Tessa, 21; 10:25) Ὑ7:2 Ὁ 
4", 20:4"; 2110; 24:17; 30:17; 31:3"; 48:17; 53:3}; 55:5.) 57:1. 
0:2; 02:2". 

Papeete. 2:25. 5:20; 10:29} 17:71. 

Renamer An 2:05: ΚΑ το 1 8) τοῦ; ὅ:), ΕἸ 7:22; 0:7}; ΤΟ Ὁ; 
Peete Ar τη: το: 41: 16:17, 85, ot 2-4: 5: ro: 117: 3, 125; 21:75. 

ΝΕ ὌΠ 8 3237 7455: 168; gras *, ἀπ 35. τυ (GF 
ΤῸ 0; 11:13, 25: 7. 

ἘΠΕ 551; 0:13. ὅδ. τὸ: οἷ, 

mea 6: 2'- 7; 9:27; 12:25, 

eer τ 1. 2:1΄; 722° G3 37. 

ea. τς τ 3. 7227. 

ΠΙΕΤΙ. τι: τ; 532". τοῦτ. 

50]. δὲ 1". 

Philip. 2:23. 

ΠΕΡ τ 15: .2:.25..2. 5: ai 3s gs 1 4s) 6:22. 9217-3: 8:12", 37-4: 6:2. 

ἘΠ τ τ: 55. 25. 71 4:2: TED ni gts gent 75. ait, 3.45 Ὅτ»; 
τ 8:01; TO: 27, 7, of 5, τοῦ TV, 2:τὸ. 25, 21. 320s V5 Test 

τ ΠΕ τ τὶ EIR dele a adie” ets let D>, Gis ps ata, te ate © 7 ai a 
Ba ol, (3: 27, εἴ 

ΠΝ τι Go) ΕΠ eG?) TTT ττὸ.ἢ Τὺ τ τὴ; VS το τ acne ἈΠ 12 
ἘΣ ΟΕ 1 65° ἢ ΝΕ acai ai ge? ὍΣ» grat. Gt 2 ὙΠ rea 
πο πο; 07:4}; 0132 2; αὐ. “LX, τ) 2:44. τὴς, 2:25; 0:83; 
ΠΣ 8: 1. 11:2}; 19:27; 22:3"; 45; 20:4". 

Did. τ6: 21. 

a) The hebraistic participle of manner: in quotations from the Old 
Testament a participle is in two instances placed before a personal form 
of the same verb. The idiom arises from an imitation of the Hebrew 
construction with the infinitive absolute. It adds intensity: 

I Clem. 56: 31, παιδεύων ἐπαίδευσέν με ὃ κύριος; 12:5). 

8. The adverbial participle of attendant circumstance, simply adding 
some associated fact or conception to the action of the principal verb.— 

Vis. I, 1:51, βλέψας δὲ εἰς αὐτὴν λέγω αὐτῇ. 

507 


3 
2 
7 


36 HISTORICAL AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES 


§ Gleme τι 25, 35/5 1. asa, 3% G85 15:45, Oo, 97 ἀν τ oe 
TO! 2" 41: 12235) 3543s 5 330%° 4,375 19755", 2: ; 202m", 25. 45 ΟΣ ΤῊΣ 
24:57; 25:2", 38°, 47; 29:17 7; 30:3. 4; 32:47; 33:3} 6; 34:4, 51; OF; 
35:53, 8; 36:27; 38:35; 30:1"; 40:3"; 41 15, 27; 42:3. 4, 4h 34; 
43:14, 27, 3°; 44:2", 3745 45:5", 7%; 48:17, 2%, 44; 55:13, 27, 3%, 67; 
BOLTOts S724 7; ποδιά sy GO531s Orne 35 (622247) Osta see 

ΤΙ (Clem: 1:27, 655) 2292+ 35, 52 n%s 6257s 1:45: ον 77510 ΘΗ ἢ 
DES reo Ἔ2: 1: 14:2. τὴ: 8 at Sy ea 5 ΤΟ 21 ce ee 

Barn. 1:37, 47: ?> 3,5"; 2 τά, 67, 9%, 16: 72:61. 4: 27,107,097) ὩΣ το 
133; 5:4", δ᾽, 7%, 8%, 9%, τοῦ; O:47" 7; 721%, 27%, OF 4 Seok ae 
οἱ; 73; 102473, 55:3; of 11 Ὁ, 1215 τι 8᾽, τοῦ 2:3: τι τ 
13:5, 75; T4527, 212, 85. 152 5%, 71: Ὁ. ο΄; 1021", τοῦ: τὸ τοῦ τ ΤΙΝ 

Diogn. 1213 8.2: 12.455: 5247-2; 829%; 21 2 7.8. 0 22 Grae 
Epo Te eo hy 212. ΒΘ ao ts 7, RES. 

Eph... 1545 τοῦτ ἡ, 25:3: 223", 273, 422° 45 97:07; 0: ita eee 
EQ Ose oh ge 23 20s erg eel DE eens 

Macon. 1:17; 25; 0714, 2°; goats 8:25: 9117395) 3's) aoe 

ΤΑΙ 7:93}: τ τ υδιτ, Osis το. Ὁ; Tero 12.: ee 

Rom. 153) 22525 crits 5,25... GOP: 

Philed. soos) 6 037/55 ot) Ὁ: 25. ot ΤῊ; mont sun aes 

Smyrn. ber: DES Bie a ἐς ἐπ ρα 2 25 ΤΕ: ΠΝ 

ῬΟΪ τι τα 20: 732% 

Philip.:'52273. 2:1. 4°73, 29833 21 02 :|75..2.0.. 2 253:.5.1.95. ον ον 
Gnas ats gta se 453 7g zat 

Marts: £:2%;. 2:17, 25, 37-7; 3:55. 5:03; 6:25: | 7: τ 5 ΣΝ 
Qi τι: 4: 5: ἐς vac 1: 5:0: Ὁ:25. 1; T2337, 24, gos 17:1 215: 2: τῷ} 2: ἊΝ 
ESE, 25, τ: αὖ; Ἐ7:.25. 48> 7 aks Biss 4, 21. τοῦτ 21 5. 4. ee 

Herm. Vis. 1, τ: 52.3:5. 5%, ΘΓ: 2:24 5°: gs?) 17 ΠΥ τ Στ 
ΠῚ τι δ᾽ 05: 2537) at, δὴ: grr 2s 82253. @2 707; τοῦ Ὁ ἘΠ π᾿ 
PRO IAA ΠΝ τ. 5 3} 2: [ον ΝΠ ΣῪ: 

Mand. ΠῚ 1347, δ: DU, τς 2 TV, 2:47; 2:42. Ὁ. εἰ )6%5 Vo 
31. BS 2a gt. ὙΠ eras. VED δ EX, 2267-3) τος αν 
Ὁ: 2 kh AT Gt Os. Tass ΚΠ oat." 2A" vate ΑΘ ὦ. 

Sim. E2273, τοῦ" 23 ΠῚ 15% 4. 81: IED, 52335) Ἀπ τ ΕΣ 
7, 9%, 1075 323% 75, ο΄; 6:37, 4%, 61:5: 7:47; VI, 2:77; 325%, 67; 5:73; 
ΝΗ; 1:53; VILL, 122°, 16%; 2: 24; 42, 95:4; 45653) 6:37 5; 7:45. epee 
FO? 254i 3s errs, Gt? 23 EX 1337) 51,107: 3h 2.25. 43 τό: 4:3 eee 
3: 721%, 3% 7, 6%; 8:2", 4h 5°; 93%, 7°; 103%, 4%; Τα 51; 12:5"; 1 
TALES L535 .17237; 443) 20327; 22:15, 335242" 4: 20: 34, 1) 28 ieee 

DO Go Bay. Wd Sah Aine αι; πε: τ 22 Ue optic en aa OF ΣΤ ce 

508 


SYNTAX OF PARTICIPLE IN THE APOSTOLIC FATHERS 37 


III. THE SUBSTANTIVE PARTICIPLE 


The substantive participle is employed as itself the name of an action 
of which its subject is the doer or, in the passive voice, the recipient. It 
thus performs a function which is more commonly discharged by the 
infinitive. It always stands in the predicative position. 

1. The substantive participle as subject—The substantive participle 
may be used as an integral element of the subject of a verb, the action 
which it denotes being itself an essential element of that of which the 
predicate is affirmed. 

Sim. VIII, 4: 43, καὶ ὡσαύτως εὑρέθησαν ξηραὶ καὶ κεκομμέναι. 

i Clem. 45:2. 3. 

TH Glem. 6:97;, 7:42. 

Dioen. 6:4"; 12:01. 

ἘΠ Π 411. .2.. 2°. 

et Vas 111.2.:-. 3: 2:15. ὅ.. $2935) τὸς 31: 112]. 

Mand. X, 2:4". 

emer Nees. VIEL 2. gas! 28s. 65. bk aes De. 
ἘΠ ΟΣ; το τὸ; τα: 85; 26: 5% 2, 

2. The substantive participle as object—The substantive participle 
may be used as an integral part of the object of a transitive verb. This 
occurs especially after verbs of perception, the action denoted by the 
participle being an essential element of that which one perceives. 

The substantive participle agrees grammatically with the subject of 
verbs of finishing, ceasing, etc., yet the action denoted by the participle 
must be regarded as logically the object of such of these verbs as are 
transitive. 

Mand. III, 1:33, ἰδὼν δέ με κλαίοντα λέγει: Τί κλαίεις; 

ΠΟΙ Ε τῖς 14°57 7; 39:8". 

Menelem. 10:5"; 20217: 7. 

Repth t= 97" 2.1 00 7:0} 4. τὸ". 

Poh. 4:25; 6:1". 

meen 5-2". 7: αἰ; 123.2%, 

ΕἸ τ VIS. ἘΠ £22", 42; 322%: qeate SEE re gt 2s) ἘΠῚ cae cess Oe: 
οἰ 2:52. 28 Ὁ: 2: 7 7)ὲι 935... Bore gts. τοῖα Grew τ: τι..5: 
maps LV, 4:6. 

Sener sss V2 238 EX ὙΠ: ΤΟΎ τ 22 ΟΠ] 25 Aas: 

ἘΠ ΠΝ τ Ν, a ae Cen a 5: ὙΠ eee ait le) Tl 
ΠΣ ὸὕ}: VLE) 526% 72: VILE) 2:.45;.2.:25 5: 6:20; EX ana. gate 
ees, 12.2.4. . 5}; £823" 7 3; 27337. 

Did. 16:8". 

509 


38 HISTORICAL AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES 


3. The substantive participle in indirect discourse——A substantive 
participle forming a part of the object of the verb is sometimes equivalent 
to a clause of indirect discourse. 

I Clem. 55:2', ἐπιστάμεθα πολλοὺς ἐν ἡμῖν παραδεδωκότας ἑαυτοὺς εἰς 
δεσμά, ὅπως ἑτέρους λυτρώσονται. 

L Clem... Ἐ2: 61} “Ὁ 720 ig 5: 25. 

Barn. 10:8". 

Diognear ps 7g a Or 

Eph. 9:17. 

Magn.) 7::1|θ3: ταῦτ 

ΤΑΙ τ 1%, 25. 

Rom. το: 25. 

Philad. τ 32 Ὁ 

Suiyru. Σ:1' 517. 8:92: 2:1". 

Philip. 4:32. 

ΜΠ ΠΕ: 71:25: 168173 17:1}. ἡ. 

Mand: ΧΙ], 4:22. 5. 

Sie ΤΠ τ: τ ΝΠ G2 ΟΣ; 25. ΣΕ, ὉΠ ar. 

4. The substantive participle as a limiting genitive-—The substantive 
participle may be used as an integral element of a genitive limiting 
phrase. 

Herm. Sim. IX, 11:7', καὶ ἔχαιρον ai παρθένοι οὕτω μου προσευχομένου. 

Barn. 11:11’. 

Eph. 6:2". 

Philad. 8: 27. 

Wiss 1 25 2... grate EE τ: Or, 

Sint, EXC Τα: Ὁ: ἸΠ: π|27.;} Ta: 

5. The substantive participle as the object of a preposition —II Clem. 
1:8? and Mand. I, 1:14 are best explained as substantive participles in the 
genitive after the preposition ἐκ. The article does not appear in the 
texts with the participle in Barn., but the MS C [H] has it. 


510 


CHAPTER III 


CONDENSED STATEMENTS AND TABLES 
I. USE OF THE GENITIVE ABSOLUTE 


One hundred and twenty-six of the participles are in the genitive 
absolute. 

With respect to tense they are distributed as follows: present, 83; 
aorist, 34; and perfect, 9, 3 being μέλλων combined with the infinitive of 
another verb. 

In logical force they are all adverbial: time, 80; condition, 8; con- 
cession, 4; cause, 7; means, 2; manner, 4; attendant circumstance, 20; 
and anacoluthic, 1. 

The Martyrdom of Polycarp, which is one twenty-fifth of the whole 
volume of the Apostolic Fathers, has 31 of the 126 participles in the 
genitive absolute. Moreover, it has two absolute genitives with the 
article simply; Mart. 7:2°; 90: 22, and one standing alone, Mart. 16:14. 
Hermas also has one standing alone, Vis. III, 2:9. 


Il. NEGATIVES WITH THE PARTICIPLE 


The negative is used with the participle in the Apostolic Fathers 168 
times. My with its compounds is used 139 times (μή, 108; μηδέν, 16; 
μητέ, 4; μηδέποτε, 4: μηκέτι, 3; εἰ μή, 2; μηθέν, 1; μήπω, 1) and ov (οὐκ, 9) is 
used 29 times. 

Nearly 53 per cent of the participles have the negative. The number 
is large in comparison with classical Greek, and shows the growth of the 
feeling that a participle is equivalent to a subordinate clause. 

Μὴ occurs with all the classes of the participle except that of means. 
It expresses the condition, reason, etc., of the action of the participle; it 
is subjective, expressing some mental attitude of the subject of the 
principal verb toward the action denoted by the participle. When used 
of external fact, it leaves the fact of the action in the background and 
brings the condition, cause, etc., of the action into prominence. 

The presence of οὐ can, in general, be explained by noting that the 
action to which it is applied is conceived to be simply a matter of fact. 
It leaves the condition, cause, etc., of the action out of view and asserts 
the fact simply as such. Both μή and ov are used of external fact, but 
with the above difference apparently well marked. 

511) 39 


40 HISTORICAL AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES 


The cases of οὐ may well be treated more in detail. Οὐ is used in 
consequence of emphatic antithesis in I Clem. 14:2"; Diog. 7:44, 57° 4. 
It coalesces with the participle, thus expressing a single negative idea, in 
Barn. 20:23: 4: 5: 9: 10. 12. Trall. 5:12; Herm. Mand. VI, 2:5'; Sim. Vil, 
1:6°; Did. 5:23: 4: 8-9: In Smyrn. 11:1? and Philip. 1: 3' the participle 
with ov is equivalent to a concessive clause, in II Clem. 1:8", to a tem- 
poral clause, in Philip. 3:1", to a causal clause, in II Clem. 1:27; 10:57, 
to an expression of attendant circumstance, and in Magn. 3:1", the par- 
ticiple is in indirect discourse. Οὐ with the participle in 11 Clem. 
2:1!-?-4, 21 is from the Septuagint, where it is the regular translation of 
δ, not, of the Hebrew; moreover, used with the article, οὐ makes the 
reference definite, whereas μή would leave it indefinite. 

In the earliest Greek literature negative particles were not used with 
the participle, but the negative idea was expressed by participles negative 
in root or by composition. This manner of expressing the negative in 
the participle has largely given place in the Apostolic Fathers to negative 
particles, which occur about six times as often. 


III. PARTICIPLES USED FOR THE FINITE VERB 


The construction requires the indicative in Barn. 6:11; Diogn. 2:15, 
and Smyrn. 1:1", and the subjunctive in Barn. 19:1"; but in each of 
these passages the participle appears in the text. 

Eph. το: 31: 7:3 are of very doubtful text. Lightfoot, Funk, Hilg, 
and others have the subjunctive, some the indicative. 


IV. ANACOLUTHIC PARTICIPLES 


II Clem. 3:1'; Eph. 1:1', and Rom. τ: τ᾿ are in broken construction. 


512 


SYNTAX OF PARTICIPLE IN THE APOSTOLIC FATHERS 


TABLE I 


NUMBER OF PARTICIPLES IN EAcH CLASS 


41 


Tense Logical Force 
ΠΥ ECR 73 RUN GI ECOULV.C sone tetere sreteiots teken kere 1,667 
PES UNUtANeOUS......-.- -- 650 τ. IRESETICHIVER. Hae ice els 420 
2. Identical action........ 108 2. Substantively......... 826 
3. Past still in progress.... τ ΕΣ ΘΙ που πο πτὺ- 278 
4. For the imperfect...... 5 A MPEECICAUIVEs seme streak 
"πον tbe future.........°. 10 @)PAdjective:.5 4-2. 80 
Periphrase with infini- b) Periphrastic........ 63 
RCE, OSA Cera eee 31 IAD VER BUAT G2) tos tacit neler 1,252 
MerGeneral. .5. 55.060. 978 REPU tact fates Crete ahi 271 
ΠΡ Oe eee 794 2: ΘΟΠΟΙ ΟΝ τον τον ον 43 
TeeAmtecedent........5.+..- 3. CONcessiony. τ ῦοῦς εἶν ος ὡς 31 
M)MOUSEALIVE...|... =... >. 12 Mi CAUSE tot ἢ 102 
b) Ingressive......... 134 5. Purpose and result..... 13 
Ἐπ δοῦνο... .-....Ψ.ὕ.ὅΨ 466 Gu Meansh Sie ctl e 41 
PMC OMEIGENE.... 6-2 ee. γ ΝΌΡΕΣ τ τὴν 187 8 
ἢ ΤΠ ρα: ...- οτος .: 61 a) Hebraistic... apres 
b) Object of verbs of 8. Attendant circumstance. 562 
perception......... 2 SUBSTANTIVE | ls alae Cecio 174 
3. Undefined time........ 6 TL SUBIECU GS oe slects it 28 
IRC SS ag ee 518 Bt ODIECH eel cross 95 
r. Action and state....... 433 3. Indirect discourse...... 14 
2. Resulting state........ 81 4. Limiting genitive...... 37 
eeebor pluperiect......-..- 4 5. Object of preposition... 2 
SURO 3 oe 5 | WITHOUT LOGICAL FORCE.... 7 
INOUE αν 3,100 ΠΟ ΑΙ Peon wrt chen 3,100 
TABLE II 


AVERAGES OF OCCURRENCE OF THE PARTICIPLE IN THE APOSTOLIC FATHERS 


The following table shows the average occurrence of the participle to the page in 
each book or group of epistles of the Apostolic Fathers and the number of participles 


in each tense, with totals. 


No. 

NaMEs oF Books P oe 
ποι... 34 
πε π΄ 1... 10 
ISSN ΠΕ 22 
IDG Eine Oe Cae 9 
Ten) Bpistles......... 27 
TEU) 2 GS eee 4 
ἈΠ πές peiaics 6 Sls iaveles 8 
leit, |e are 82 
ΠΡ δ Shy.) 52.3: τὶ 

ποτα τ ow alee 203 


Νο. ΟΕ 
PARTICIPLES 


460 
164 


TENSE 
AVERAGE 
No. To PaGE 
Present | Aorist | Perfect | Future 

13.8 247 | 117 95 
16.4 οὔ 55 12 
14.4 208 75 35 
19.3 106 44 22 
12.8 107 74 74 
18 30 21 II 
24 102 74 τό 
1 728) 314 246 
ἘΣ ἢ 60 20 7 

15.3 | 1,783] 794| 518 


HISTORICAL AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES 


I v I I oe ς ZI φ I ὟΝ φ z οι σα το DTD Ὁ Ὁ ΘΠΌΘΡΙΩ 
oF |61 |r [68 [61 Q |e 1Ἢ |6r |€ jSexri€e1 2 jz iW aa 1 | oy 2 lac lh im ἸΟΘΡΙΘΟΣ [JO FO at owIe eco ape meen) a 
Co Cae Kee Ones S AG) vi jz |r (th Ig ς + OR ANE SS Ck to Gal 1 3]. ον Calan OFC N eeSOSET LS Heyy 
oe z 6 . o. z gI I I I 6 ΘΙ αὐ ν'ὐν ὁ, 6.01.6 οἷο δι5. ὁ ὅτ} 6 Ὁ. Ὁ diiyd 
δ Enz ΟΡ See |e v 1 |ve τ" patil a al 0 2 ΞΡ τ OOO S'S 2514 "121 
Z φ lis . “* ΟΙ I $I QI ¢ ΟΙ Ζ Ltr gz Ce Ὁ '. 6 9 Ὁ usoIiqd 
4 Li γι re [re 0 Va OL If joz τ |G ΙΔ Ὁ [pa Le ail cel [Riese cae SSO STI-O 2 20D ule g 
ζ € i I ace 11 41 Sr [ΔΙ I Fiemme te AG η p bn PCI ποτ σου σου ΠΟ] II 
€ 11} j1b |6€ z Δ $s 5 dol 2: ek toe ame sean δ᾽ Ὁ 1. τὰ 6 8 Sh Zee) OE ssc oe wd ς 
SE ae a Se ee een eee eee ee een en eee ee el Paes el ee ee = 
"ἄτι ἽΠΙ Id ‘Vv ‘Id ‘dwy wy 14 ὝὟ ‘Ig "ἄπ ‘wy Id ‘Vv ‘Id ‘dwy “ny ‘Jd ‘Vv ‘Id ‘did “ἀπ ἍΠΙ Id Ae ‘Id ee ay qieA wy 
1891}09Ρ1 quapooezuy [eorqUepy snosue}[NUIS 
[C0700 7 ee ee ee eS | es 9 ἀτο 1218 a 
Islaoy INdSAag 


GALIINO 51 AMIOLAVG AMNINY AHL “GAS 51 ATMIOMAVG AHL HOIHM| HIIM AAAA TVdIONIAG AHL 40 SASNAL AH], 


III ATaVL 


43 


SYNTAX OF PARTICIPLE IN THE APOSTOLIC FATHERS 


LE | tr | $6 |} ge | zoS| 691) ΣΡ 


μι 

μι 
“ὦ 

+ 


oor =L+4£6o'F “99101 789130] yNoyWWM 4+ ][ej}0], 


Cla evOviere ame val tLe 80 [95 522) OZelnOoP |e Oem που ον "TROT, 
I ἢ eee Ζ I - Bl p.e dee Sle 4 πα θην 9.0.80 a! oe, syaneupaaue 91Π1Π Ρ̓ 
ee oz φ I C1 or Cz ἐς gz1 OzI gis 8,.,δ'᾽ὄ ὁ trae @ δ᾽ asin Δ 6146 elelegenere eee "09 194 fe) 
oa oie ae ee ea = I ς ζ ὩΣ fier reece eee snoouryjaostyy ἘΞ Ὥ 4 
Zz .». Zz z ee 09 TP CY ee iC bie aly OO Cry Get} 1891 0901] 9 > ΕΗ 
γι Ὅν το όσα Ὁ OPT sO, chop ποτ τ quapasszuy } 2} SO 
Ι I ee z es Pry 6 1 a Sr Ly Ὁ Δ elal's! (py τ ὦν τ τ ΒΠΟΘΙΓΠΠ9ΌΘΤΤΛΙ by B ry 
z6 9 6 oe oe I ee eee gor ἘΦ, 6, OC Om ch Dace ee C) Gecern Coo yeonuepy a 5 > 
ἘΠῚ ET (OL | Sia | ece|ec. ig I Shoe ff tea [ΟΣ || aicea i (ay VEU OCs | alse OVO ον ον kerk hoe eae Snooue}NULIS o ΗΕ 
6 Zz ᾽ν ζ δ τῷ Ι €z [9 ὙΦ» ἐτο Ὁ ΚΕ ᾧ υ ἡ 5. ἃ Δ} HOOT LO ΤΣ τ ρτ ρον δ cece eae eas 18 19119:.) Ἐν fe 
ist) deh eh ὦ nett} ΟΠ] ΔΙ ele Ge, ΠῚ 
ΕΙΣ ἐξ ἘΠΕ] ΠΠΕΠΕΠΕῈ ἘΠΕΠΕ ΕΠ} ἢ 
τ el el Bie ΠΡ, ΡΒ] a= ea a 5. | 2 
Bee πρλε δε 155] Ἐπ 8 he eae: Big | & 
ΠΕ ee Ε Bales τά = ba fg ef as 
g | 8 3 Ε = 
z 5 3 azeoIpelg aannquiiy 5 
oe oO 
ϑλιγαθΊβατις Terqieapy 2atqoafpy 


5080 TVO1I90T 


‘UUM]OO 1517 943 UI 51 8961 sse[D 94} Ur 59] 101]11864 10 Jaquinu 


aoyM ay ‘apdrojszed 901 Jo SUOISIAIp 95119] 911 Jo Sasse[D OFUI 9910} [eI1ZO] 07 Burps0ode sopdionsed 911 591Π611151Ρ 91681 Surmoyjoy 9101, 
SAIdIOILUVG AHL AO AOWOY TVOIOOT AHL 


AI ATAVL 


515 


44 HISTORICAL AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES 


V. COMPARISONS WITH THE NEW TESTAMENT AND CLASSICAL GREEK 


Each page of the Apostolic Fathers contains 15.3 participles; in the 
New Testament, the number averages about 15.2 to the page of the 
same size. 

Fifty-eight per cent of the participles in the Apostolic Fathers are in 
the present tense, 25 per cent in the aorist tense, 16 per cent in the perfect 
tense, and one-sixth of 1 per cent (5 instances) are in the future tense. 
In the New Testament, 56 per cent of the participles are in the present 
tense, 35 per cent in the aorist tense, g per cent in the perfect tense, and 
one-fifth of 1 per cent (14 instances) are in the future tense.* 

The participle as a whole occurs not quite as frequently in the New 
Testament as in the Apostolic Fathers, but the periphrastic verb form 
occurs more frequently in the New Testament than in the Apostolic 
Fathers, and the present participle combined with the imperfect indica- 
tive occurs nearly four times as frequently in the New Testament as in 
the Apostolic Fathers. 

In logical force, 54 per cent of the participles in the Apostolic Fathers 
are adjectival, 40 per cent adverbial, nearly 6 per cent, substantive, and 
nearly one-fourth of 1 per cent (7 instances) stand in broken construction. 

There are 17 uses of the participle in the Apostolic Fathers. The 
adjectival participle used substantively occurs as often as all the other 
adjective participles together, and constitutes nearly 27 per cent of all 
the participles in the Apostolic Fathers. The adverbial participle of 
attendant circumstance is next in frequency of occurrence, followed by 
the definitive adjective participle, constituting respectively 18 and 14 
per cent of all the participles in the Apostolic Fathers. The remaining 
uses, arranged in the order of their relative frequency of occurrence, are 
as follows: explanatory, time, manner, cause, substantive, object, 
predicate adjective, periphrastic, condition, means, substantive indirect 
discourse, concessive, substantive subject, limiting genitive, purpose. 
Two instances (II Clem. τ: 82; Mand. I, 1:14) are best explained as sub- 
stantive participles in the genitive after the preposition ἐκ. 

No case of the neuter participle equivalent to an abstract noun 
occurs. This usage is rare both in the New Testament and in classical 
Greek. Neither the nominative nor the accusative absolute occurs. 
Nor does AavOavw, τυγχάνω, or φθάνω occur in the Apostolic Fathers 
in construction with a participle. τυγχάνω with a participle occurs 
once in the Septuagint (II Macc. 39), and λανθάνω also once in the 

*The data for the New Testament were obtained from unpublished investiga- 


tions of Professor H. F. Allen. 
516 


SYNTAX OF PARTICIPLE IN THE APOSTOLIC FATHERS 45 


Septuagint (Tobit 12") and once in the New Testament (Heb. 137). 
The rare classical usage of a verb in construction with a participial form 
of τυγχάνω occurs twice in the Apostolic Fathers (Diogn. 10:77; Sim. 
i) 20:47). 

The aorist participle is not, used in the Apostolic Fathers to express 
action subsequent to that of the principal verb as it is thought by some 
to do in the New Testament. The only case of the aorist in a peri- 
phrastic form is of doubtful text (II Clem. 17:7°). 

ὡς dv is used twice (Pap. 2:8'; Barn. 6:11?) in the Apostolic 
Fathers with a participle, in like manner three times in the Septuagint 
ΠΟ. 1; II Macc. 124; ΠῚ Macc. 4"). 

The Apostolic Fathers have 174 substantive participles. The verbs 
with which they are used, arranged in order of their frequency of occur- 
rence, are as follows: ὁράω (εἴδω, 48; ὥφθην, 4), 62; βλέπω, 34; εὑρίσκω, 
15; γιγνώσκω, το; ἀκούω, 8; δείκνυμι, 7; νοέω, φαίνω, παύω, διαλείπω, 
παραμένω, εὐφραίνω, ἐπιμένω, διδάσκω, δηλόω, ἐπιγιγνώσκω, ἐφίστημι, μετανοέω, 
συγτελέω, τελέω, χαίρω. The last seven occur once each. Ὄφελὸς... 
ἐστιν (Vis. III, 3:17: 3) and ‘Aapos ἤμην (Sim. LX, 10:17) with the parti- 
ciple seem to be extensions of such classical usage as the participle with 
δῆλός εἰμι and φανερός εἰμι. 

The Apostolic Fathers are closely allied to the New Testament in 
the uses of the participle employed, in the particles used with the 
participle, and in the classes of verbs with which the participle occurs. 
The difference from the New Testament, which consists largely of 
frequency of usage and emphasis, indicates that the Apostolic Fathers 
are freer from hebraistic influence than the New Testament. 


517 


δ uit 


ἢ 


i ὙΡΊΝ 


A Historical Examination of Some Non-Markan 


Elements in Luke 


Ἐν νὴ AM Cia 
ΠΥ ἀν ee 


ap ς 


A. Historical Examination 
of Some Non-Markan 
Elements in Luke 


By 
ERNEST WILLIAM PARSONS, PH.D. 


THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO PRESS 
CHICAGO ILLINOIS 


CopyRIGHT 1914 By 
THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO 


All Rights Reserved 


Published December 1914 


Composed and Printed By 
The University of Chicago Press 
Chicago, Illinois, U.S.A. 


TABLE OF CONTENTS 


PAGE 
IntropucTION. A Statement of the Purpose and Method of This Essay 0 


I. AN EXAMINATION OF THE MATERIAL CONTAINED IN LUKE 9:51—18:14 


iene General Missionary Interest - 0.) τὸ se τ 
εἰ ΠΝ ΗΘ samaritan Loterest; ..0 206; "cos ek τ 
III. The Reciprocal Opposition of Pharisees and Christians . . 30 
mane bmpnasis on Discipleship ὁ“. τ. . ... ws. 24 
Renee ASCeLIG MOLEPESt 8) ee Ss kw a ye τὺ 58 
ΕΠ ΠΟ veacning- on Exorcism . Ὁ. . τ τὺ πῆ GE 
ΒΡ ΡΤ ΘΕ ΠΟΙ ΘΗ 2.50. ey) ke τοὺ 2 
memerune Maracle Klement’; . << «4. 2 “Ὁ 2» « ww «46 
PUIG HTISTOIOR Yi ac es en el ae ee ee AO 
meee ne Eropress of Christianity . τ Ὁ 2) S > 2% “54 
Βα ither Indications asto Time and Place. . . . . - . 55 


1. AN EXAMINATION OF THE NON-MARKAN MATERIAL CONTAINED IN LUKE, 


Caps. 3-8 
Seeesermon onthe Plan: . . . . . = «+ πος 63 
eeiiememainder ofthe Material. . . . . ..«.. « 69 


523] 5 


} a) ἣν 
᾿ ey 


Grateful acknowledgment is made by the author of his indebtedness 
to all his instructors. He wishes especially to express his gratitude to 
Associate Professor Shirley Jackson Case, whose interest and counsel 
have stimulated and aided him in his task. 


525] 7 


INTRODUCTION 


The discovery and recognition of the practical or functional element 
in the writings of both Old and New Testaments have produced results 
of great value for the interpretation of these books. As long as the 
approach was from the standpoint of absolutism—that is, as long as 
the statements which the writings contained were considered valid 
and true per se, as well as authoritative and equally applicable to all 
time and to every conceivable circumstance—so long did formidable 
difficulties arise on almost every page the scholar examined. It is not 
claimed that the application of the principle of pragmatic interest has 
solved all the problems or laid all the specters, but it is contended that 
no scientific interpretation is possible where the immediate circumstances 
of the writing, with regard both to the writer and to those to whom the 
document was directed, are ignored. 

A brief review of some of the New Testament writings will serve to 
illustrate and establish the position. The correspondence of Paul with 
the Corinthian church presents almost innumerable difficulties if an 
attempt is made to interpret it apart from a definite problem-situation. 
As long as the thought of universal validity was maintained the difficult 
passages, such as speaking with tongues, eating of meats, the sugges- 
tions regarding marriage, the conduct of women in public worship, 
either were passed by lightly, received fanciful explanations, or were 
rendered grotesque by an attempted application of them unchanged 
to the differing conditions of another age. The recognition of the definite 
purposes and aims of this correspondence not only has cleared up many 
perplexing statements, but has enhanced the religious value of the letters 
for modern life. The reality of the problems of that day, the primitive 
ideas, the crude yet splendid attempts at readjustment of old and new 
on the part of this church, as well as the sanity and insight of the great 
apostle, emerge with considerable clearness when viewed from the strictly 
historical side. 

The strange atmosphere of the Colossian letter, especially in the 
sphere of christological thought and statement, is exceedingly difficult 
apart from a knowledge and recognition of the definite aim which the 
writer had before him. The differences between this letter and those 
generally acknowledged to be Pauline are so marked as to have occa- 
sioned grave questioning as to whether the apostle could have produced 
527] 9 


10 HISTORICAL AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES 


it. The recognition of the incipient heresy with its peculiar character- 
istics against which the writer so stoutly contended has furnished the 
key to the situation, and, although we may not know all we wish to know 
concerning the sect at Colossae, enough is known to explain why the 
theological thinking of the apostle manifests this rather sharp turn. 

The Roman letter is but poorly understood until we remember the 
bitter conflicts and bitterer experiences which had fallen to the lot of 
the author while he labored in the East. His work practically com- 
pleted there,’ this missionary-statesman, with visions of western worlds 
to conquer, in which campaign Rome as a base of operations was almost 
indispensable, pens the document which is to introduce him to the church 
in that city and forestall those opponents who hung upon him so tena- 
ciously. Approached in this way, much of the letter becomes luminous. 

Few, if any, of the books of the New Testament have given rise 
to so many baffling questions, have suffered so many fantastic interpre- 
tations, as that which closes the Canon. The history of its interpreta- 
tion is full of interest? but that is not our concern here. It was not until 
indications of a definite situation were discovered and expressions which 
disclosed the purpose of the writer in connection with this situation 
were noted that any real progress in the comprehension of the Apocalypse 
was made. If this book is read in the light of the Domitian persecution, 
the rare faith and fine courage of the author bear a message which cannot 
fail to be of effect. 

The First Epistle of John is in danger of sad misunderstanding 
unless it is recognized that it was written to combat certain errors which 
the author considered serious. Hostility to Docetic Gnosticism which 
was developing along the lines of aristocracy and libertinism was with- 
out doubt one of the determining factors in the composition of this 
letter. Not to remember this and not to allow for it is to miss the 
original meaning of its composer. 

So far little exception will be taken to our statements. In fact 
it would not be a difficult matter to show that all the epistolary litera- 
ture of the New Testament was produced by problem-situations more 
or less definite. But what of the gospels—those fountain-heads of our 
knowledge of Jesus? Has the pressure of circumstances been operative 
there? Do these gospels with their resemblances and differences arise 
from definite situations which have determined their material and 

t Rom. 15:23. 

2See von Dobschiitz, The Eschatology of the Gospels, pp. 39-60; H. B. Swete, 
The Apocalypse of St. John, pp. cciii-ccxv; R. H. Charles, Studies in the Apocalypse. 

528 


SOME NON-MARKAN ELEMENTS IN LUKE 11 


colored its presentation to a greater or less degree? It is coming to be, 
if it is not already, generally recognized that this is true in a striking 
way of the Fourth Gospel. The points of dissonance and disagreement 
between it and the Synoptics are seen to be very largely the result of 
definite situations and aims which controlled its production. To take 
but one example: the representation of John the Baptist in the Fourth 
Gospel with its peculiar and striking dissimilarities to the Synoptic 
picture is wonderfully well explained as a polemic against a Johannine 
sect which preferred claims for its founder that made him a rival of the 
Christ.t It can scarcely be gainsaid that the Fourth Gospel is a prag- 
matic work, and in the light of this admitted fact it must be interpreted.’ 

As to the Synoptics, the answer is not so clear nor so unanimous. 
There have been statements as to the purposes of these gospels, but they 
are general purposes only and throw but little light on many of the 
_ problems. It is true that Luke gives a statement of purpose in his 
preface,3 but it carries us only a short distance on our way. Of Mark 
some are content to say that he sets forth the public career of Jesus 
with little or no conscious argumentative purpose; others, however, 
detect a more or less definite purpose. One is justified in saying that 
it was written for purposes of propaganda and not as critical history. 
With regard to Matthew it is generally said that his aim is to show that 
Jesus is the Old Testament Messiah founding the kingdom which after 
Jewish rejection is thrown open to all. Sometimes a definite situation 
is suggested, but rarely with assurance. It is in the very nature of 
things that there should be a greater amount of indefiniteness in dis- 
covering the exact purpose of the Synoptics, assuming for the moment 
that they have more than a general one. In the first place, the narrative 
and biographical material which they use serves at times to make the 
discovery of purpose difficult. The charm of the narrative diverts the 
attention and only by careful searching can such purpose be detected. 
In the second place, these writers are using for a later period stories 
of a past or passing generation, and sayings that ostensibly were spoken 
by a person of a past generation in view of situations which confronted 
him at the time of speaking. The matter is further complicated by the 


t As to the existence of such a sect, cf. Acts 19:1-5, and p. 44. 

2 Note the specific aim of the Fourth Gospel as stated in 20:31. For a state- 
ment of the aims of the Fourth Gospel, cf. E. F. Scott, The Fourth Gospel, pp. 65- 
103; Baldensperger, Der Prolog des vierten Evangeliums. 

3 Luke 1:1-4. 

4Cf. Ernest D. Burton, A Short Introduction to the Gospels, pp. 33-40. 

529 


12 HISTORICAL AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES 


use of sources which in all probability themselves took form in whole 
or in part in response to immediate needs in the early Christian com- 
munities. It is not required for the purposes of this essay to trace this 
matter farther here. The pragmatism of the Synoptics, while highly 
probable and generally admitted, is discoverable only after a patient 
and somewhat minute examination. But its discovery, even with what 
lack of definiteness may attach to it, has been of value and will be 
increasingly so in the determination of origin and date. 

The point of the foregoing partial survey has been merely to show the 
existence, and that generally of a specific and definite purpose in the 
New Testament writings. They were not written merely because an 
author wished to produce. They did not aim—in nearly all cases—to be 
historical works, at least, primarily. They were rather writings pressed 
out in the heat of controversy, struck out by the blows of the militant 
young religion as it met its foes and thrust back its frontiers, and some- 
times called forth by the pain and mystery of persecution. That is to 
say, they were produced in some definite historical situation and to meet 
some specific need which is reflected more or less clearly on their pages. 

If the books of the New Testament as they now stand are found on 
examination to manifest practical aims which help in their interpreta- 
tion and elucidation, is there any valid reason against carrying back the 
process to the sources of these books where such sources are discoverable ? 
Will it not yield the same assistance in regard to these sources as it has 
yielded in regard to the books themselves? This has been done in a 
measure in the case of the Apocalypse. The remains of an older Jewish 
apocalypse, some Christian apocalyptic reflecting the time of Nero, and 
later additions from the time of Domitian, have been thought by some 
to be discoverable there. But we are in a better position in the matter 
of the discovery of sources with respect to the First and Third Gospels 
than with respect to any other books in the Canon. The use of Mark 
by each, the statement of Luke himself, and the comparison of the non- 
Markan sections of these gospels yield us results which cannot be 
obtained elsewhere in our field. There is no need to detail or even to 
outline the work that has been done on the literary relationships of the 
Synoptics. Our concern is not with that. The purpose of this essay 
is to submit some of the non-Markan material of the Third Gospel to 
an examination from the historical and problem-situation standpoints, 
with a view to discovering the interests which lay behind the formation 
of the tradition and thus to gain a knowledge of the provenance of such 
tradition and the date at which it probably took form. 

530 


SOME NON-MARKAN ELEMENTS IN LUKE 13 


Too often the approach to the study of the gospels is from the stand- 
point and the days of Jesus. This is done even by those who are investi- 
gating in a historical spirit and who are endeavoring by historical method 
to interpret the documents. Is there not at least as much to be said 
in favor of an approach from the standpoint of the Christian community 
in the period of gospel-making when these traditions were taking shape, 
or assuming new forms, either orally or in writing? Is it not strictly 
historical and psychologically correct to consider the gospel sources 
in the light of the pressing and insistent needs of the primitive Chris- 
tian communities? It is incredible that the circumstances which caused 
the tradition to be preserved and emphasized should not color, and 
possibly determine, the selection and form of the products of their 
literary and pedagogical activity. 

It is with the hypothesis that the problem-situation is a valuable 
touchstone for interpretation that the approach to this material is made. 
The method pursued will be to interrogate the various sections of the 
material with a view to discovering the purpose which it was designed 
to serve and to find the situation into which it fits with the greatest 
degree of probability. It is claimed that if certain sections manifest 
aptitude to serve certain purposes and such purposes which needed 
serving can be located in time and place we shall be justified in giving 
grave consideration to the possibility of those sections having arisen 
in oral or literary form at that time and in that location. Moreover, 
if a considerable number of sections show marked ability to function 
at a similar place and about the same period, and if we find this material 
existent in compact and solid form, it will be considered that there is a 
strong presumption in favor of considering this material either a docu- 
ment or a selection from a document. On the other hand, if in the 
course of our examination of the material certain sections of it should 
disclose such a diversity of problem-situations and characteristics as 
to call for a change of provenance, or if the controlling purposes appear 
to be essentially different, and if such diversity should continue in a 
fairly consistent way, it will be considered a valid argument for the 
differentiation of these sections into separate sources. This difference 
need not extend to every detail, for whatever the provenance or situa- 
tion, there would of necessity be some common elements through com- 
munity of general subject and aim. 

Two matters call for consideration here. This discussion does not 
concern itself with the question of the historicity of the statements 
recorded in the material it considers. There will be little inclination 

531 


14 HISTORICAL AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES 


to deny that our gospels are interpretations of Jesus—his person, 
teaching, and works. The fact that they are interpretations, even inter- 
pretations arising amid stress of special situations to meet which they 
assumed approximately their present form, does not of itself involve 
a departure from essential historicity. A reflective interpretation may 
be as accurate as an unreflective one. It may even be possible that a 
reflective interpretation may give a closer approximation to the real 
significance of the events." . 

Neither does the literary aspect of the synoptic problem intimately 
concern us here. This study may have a bearing on that question, but 
it approaches the material unhampered by any theory. While this is 
true, it must be said that the two-document theory is assumed to be not 
proven. The second source, Q, is on the basis of that hypothesis 
assumed to be a document. Upon how precarious a foundation this 
assumption rests the various attempts which have been made to recon- 
struct it clearly show. Much work on the problem has been vitiated 
by too rigid an adherence to it. It is at least as probable, in view of 
the phenomena of the First and Third Gospels, that Matthew had 
sources independent of Luke, and vice versa, while these sources may 
have possessed common material. Is it not possible that in the crystal- 
lization of tradition common material may have found itself in juxta- 
position with peculiar material? The possibility of the emergence of 
similar problem-situations in various places and at slightly different 
times must be considered in the attempt to explain the variations of 
Matthew and Luke. It is an assumption largely gratuitous that all 
the common material in Matthew and Luke must have come from the 
same immediate source. Our approach to the study of the non-Markan 
Luke will be unhampered by the question of its relation to Matthew. 
The material will be taken as it stands in Luke and examined by the 
method outlined above. 

Those parts of the Third Gospel which will come under our considera-. 
tion are: (1) that block of material extending from 9:51 to 18:14; (2) the 
sections peculiar to Luke contained in 3:7—8:3. These latter sections 
do not appear consecutively, being broken by Markan material, but they 
are, nevertheless, rather clearly defined. 

It may be urged as an objection to the following treatment that it 
goes on its own way with a degree of complacency and does not take 
into consideration the work that has been done by others and the con- 
clusions which they have reached. It is quite true that there is an 

τ Cf. Cambridge Biblical Essays, pp. 292-94. 

532 


SOME NON-MARKAN ELEMENTS IN LUKE 15 


apparent ignoring of much that has been said on the Synoptic Gospels, 
but this is not in any way due to a lack of appreciation of the excellence 
of the work done or of the very great value of its results. It has been 
thought advisable to avoid the literary question as far as possible as 
tending, on the one hand, to obscure the historical argument, and, on 
the other hand, to increase the length of this essay beyond its proper 
limits. It is not for a moment denied that the literary aspect of the 
problem has most important bearings on the matter; the desire has 
been to present the other phase. As to any failure to consider work 
done from the historical point of view, this is due to the fact that almost 
all of it, if not all, has a different approach, and thus it has been deemed 
wise to follow the main thread of the thought without deviating to 
discuss other conclusions. The wisdom, or the reverse, of this proceed- 
ing must be left to the individual judgment. Ina very few cases excep- 
tion has been made and an opposing position considered. To have 
discussed or even to have noticed the various matters of this kind would 
have unduly beclouded what the writer intended should be his chief 
interest. 

A further objection may be that there is underlying the argument 
of this essay an assumption that a very important, if not a determining, 
reason for the preservation and promulgation of traditions concerning 
Jesus is the ability to serve a situation obtaining after his departure. 
This assumption, it may be charged, is seriously challenged by the fact 
that the gospel-writers, working at a later date, used material which 
ex hypothesi took form to meet an earlier condition. The reply to such 
a charge will be along several lines: the persistence in the early church 
of situations generally similar to those which the formulation was first 
designed to meet, the greater freedom of adjustment and selective power 
in the period when the tradition was oral and first applied to the problems 
of the community, the increasing disinclination to interfere with apostolic 
tradition, and the fact that in some cases alterations due to needs existent 
at the time of the writing of the gospels can be detected. Moreover, 
is there not underlying such a criticism an assumption that there was a 
pre-resurrection tradition of more or less fixity? Is it not nearer the 
fact to say that the literature is a product of the movement and bears 
the marks of the problems amid which it arose and for the solution of 
which it was designed ? 


533 


I. AN EXAMINATION OF THE MATERIAL CONTAINED, IN 
LUKE 9:51—18:14 


We shall first pass in review that mass of material which is found 
in Luke 9:51—18:14, and which is known by various designations, 
such as “‘The Great Interpolation,” “‘The Perean Section,” etc. In 
this material the points of contact with Mark are reduced to a minimum 
and the peculiarly Lukan material is predominant. As already stated, 
the purpose of examining this material is to discover the interests of 
the early church which were served by it and to determine as accurately 
as possible their time and place. 


I. THE GENERAL MISSIONARY INTEREST 


It does not require a very close study of the section before us to show 
that one of the interests served by it is the general missionary activity 
of the Christian community. The statement of the appointment of 
the Seventy, the instructions given to them, the classes among which 
they labored are in close alignment with 1{.: It will be observed that 
the function of these messengers is purely a missionary one. There is 
no word of their selection for instruction by Jesus as there is of the 
Twelve. They are appointed to give a specific message and to do a 
specific work (vs. 9). The first matter that impresses one in reading 
this account is the number—seventy. It appears nowhere else in con- 
nection with the work of Jesus, and it is rather surprising to find that 
such a number of competent evangelists were available. The number 
seventy, which varies with seventy-two, is a natural number, and, at 
the same time, a somewhat artificial one. When the expanding interests 
of the church called for assistants to the Twelve, we find the seven 
deacons, the seventy (seventy-two) evangelists. In the predilection 
of the Jews for such numbers is found one reason for the choice, while 
the analogy of the seventy (seventy-two) elders who counseled with 
Moses might be adduced as another. The number suggests a time when 
the evangelizing task of the church had become too great for the Twelve. 
The emphasis placed upon the house in this tour of the Seventy suggests 
the important part played by the house in primitive Christianity. 

t Luke το 1-24. 

2Cf.. Acts 2:46; 5:42; 8:3; 0:22 ἢ; chap. 10; 12:12; Coll 4.1, ee ame 
chap. 2. 

16 [584 


SOME NON-MARKAN ELEMENTS IN LUKE ΠΠ 


The impression regarding Jesus is that very much of his work was done 
in connection with the synagogues and in the open air. Assuredly 
some of his activity was in houses, just as some of the early Christian 
activity was in synagogues, but the emphasis on the house is suggestive. 
A rather striking phrase meets us in this account—‘‘son of peace.” 
In early Christian thought peace was one of the possessions of the true 
Christian. Χάρις καὶ εἰρήνη is a frequent combination. Is a “son of 
peace” a Christian, and is the evangelist to search out.the house of such 
a one as a place from which to work? These verses are quite intelligible 
from the standpoint of a statement of regulations of primitive Chris- 
tian evangelists. A Christian house is to be the base of operations and 
the prohibition of the long Jewish salutations is to prevent secondary 
matters from interfering with that which is of supreme importance. 
The injunction to ‘“‘eat such things as are set before you”’ looks in the 
direction of a relaxation of the customs regarding clean and unclean. 
It points to a time when the work of Christian evangelists brought them 
into intimate contact with others than rigid Jews. Was this the case 
in the ministry of Jesus? The command to wipe off the dust from their 
feet against a rejecting city is very Jewish, but indicates that the activity 
of these men extended to others than orthodox Jews. The Jew is said 
to have shaken off the dust of Samaria when he left its unclean soil. 
The verses containing the woes on the cities have a twofold tendency. 
There is a distinctly favorable inclination to the extra-Palestinian cities 
represented by Tyre and Sidon, while the woes pronounced on the 
Jewish cities seem to indicate a rejection of the Christian message by 
the Jews and to reflect a time when the Christians would be interested 
in recalling any word of Jesus which represented the anger of God as 
falling on the Jews for such rejection. 

The verses 17-24 reflect a stage when the missionary work of the 
church has met with some success and some failure. The exorcism of 
demons—the spectacular part of the work of the church—has made 
the greater impression and threatens to engross the attention of the 
Christians to the exclusion of the moral and spiritual aspects of their 
task.1 This is very primitive and points to a time when the gifts of 
the Spirit were still a unique possession. The partial failure is shown 
in vss. 21 ff. The message of the preacher has not met with approval 
and acceptance on the part of the influential classes, but it is in the main, 
if not exclusively, by the lower and humble people that its appeal has 
been answered. The word of Jesus that it was the will of the Father 

Ἐν 5εὶ 19-20. 

535 


18 HISTORICAL AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES 


that ‘“‘babes”’ should receive the revelation would be of immense value 
in such a situation. The statement of Paul to the Corinthianst might 
be considered here. 

These indications tend to show that this tradition serves interests 
which would emerge when the church began systematically to expand 
the scope of her activities. This expansion necessitated the use of a 
larger number of evangelists than the Twelve, instructions for mis- 
sionaries in their new work, and explanations of the phenomena attendant 
upon their work. 

The parable of the Supper contained in 14:15-24 manifests the 
missionary interest in a most striking manner. There can be little 
doubt that the supper which is prepared represents the kingdom with 
its blessing. The invitation has been extended to those with whom 
the host had more or less intimate relations, people who might be 
expected to appreciate the honor and eagerly to embrace the opportunity. 
Their astounding conduct could not fail to arouse the ire of the despised 
and rejected benefactor. He in turn meets the situation with conduct 
equally strange, in that he sends his servants to gather from the most 
unlikely places—the lanes and streets—people who had hitherto seemed 
to be at the farthest remove from those who were originally invited to 
enjoy the hospitality and generosity of the lord of the supper. Still 
more striking is the command to furnish his table with guests even to 
the extent of constraint. The keen disappointment and righteous 
indignation of the master is revealed by the stern statement that the 
refusal of his invitation brings absolute exclusion from the joys of the 
feast. 

The most probable interpretation of this parable is that it sets 
forth the rejection of the gospel of the kingdom and its blessings by the 
Jews and their acceptance by the Gentiles. The situation reflected 
would be that of the early church in those days when she was feeling 
the obligation to press beyond the limits which had hitherto circum- 
scribed her endeavors, and to give the message of redemption to people 
whom she had hitherto not considered eligible and who had been looked 
upon as having no claim on the blessings of the kingdom. The forces 
which brought about such a feeling of obligation are not to be discussed 
here, but the very essence of the gospel on its religio-ethical side was 
universalism. It is very evident that part of the early narrow, restricted 
community of Jewish Christians did break the ‘insidious bar” and 
“follow the gleam.”’ But the very existence of the parable in its present 


tJ Cor. 1:26 ff. 
536 


SOME NON-MARKAN ELEMENTS IN LUKE 19 


form shows that this step was not taken without serious questioning 
as to its propriety. There was a question of tremendous import to be 
answered: How could it be that the heritage of the chosen people was 
to be taken away and given to those “without the pale’? In the time 
of Paul this question was insistent and the mighty mind of the apostle 
grappled with it. His solution is contained in the letter to the Romans, 
chaps. 9-11. How important a question it was and how bitterly con- 
tested is seen with some clearness in the situations discussed in Acts, 
chaps. 10, 11, 15, and in the long struggle between Paul and the Judaizers. 
This parable explains the matter by two implicit statements: (1) Those 
to whom the invitation was first extended, namely, the Jews, had 
wantonly refused it. (2) By a direct command of the master of the 
feast the invitation is given to those without. 

The situation thus reflected is that of the early days of missionary 
activity, when the barriers which had kept the church’s endeavor 
entirely within the Jewish nation were being broken down and the gospel 
was being carried to the Gentiles. How great an advance and how 
perplexing a question this was we shall not comprehend unless we suc- 
ceed in appreciating, in a measure, the strong and deep Jewish convic- 
tions of the early Palestinian Christians, especially those of Jerusalem. 
The foundations of their universe were being removed and it was 
inevitable that intense and bitter opposition should arise. If in this 
situation the missionary leaders, men with keener insight and broader 
horizons than their fellows, could adduce a tradition that Jesus had 
taught them that this would be the line of development—if the mis- 
sionary endeavor of the church could be reinforced by an ipse dixit 
of the Master—it would be of immense value and importance. Such 
a tradition we have in the verses under discussion. 

The inimitable parables of the fifteenth chapter come under this 
general missionary interest. The introductory verses to the parables 
which show how Jesus associated intimately with publicans and sinners, 
and which contain the Pharisaic protest against this intimacy, can easily 
be understood as rendering service in such a situation as that in which 
Peter is described as finding himself in Acts 10:10; 11:3 ff. If the 
Master had eaten with sinners the disciple is not above him. This 
would furnish a most powerful argument in favor of the broader and more 
generous spirit which was reaching out with the gospel to those beyond. 
The parables themselves, so well known, bear directly on missionary 
endeavor. The ratio of ninety-nine to one is not of national significance; 
to consider it as such would be to make a mere incident of the parable 

537 


20 HISTORICAL AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES 


the important matter. The parables of the Lost Sheep and Coin are 
not polemics against the Jews nor arguments for the Gentile mission 
assuch. They are rather arguments, the more potent because so appo- 
site, setting forth the urgency of saving the lost, and the “‘imperative”’ 
of missionary activity. If there is significance in the ratio of the num- 
bers, it is to show the value of such work, even if it appears insignificant 
in results. It is the qualitative rather than the quantitative emphasis. 

The third parable, that of the Prodigal Son, has a similar point if 
we go no farther than the twenty-fourth verse. The point is made in a 
somewhat different manner, but it is the same thought that is empha- 
sized, namely, the supreme necessity and value of the work of saving 
the lost. The joy of the father and the glad willingness of the reception 
of the wayward one reproduced in the attitude of the missionaries and 
Christians generally would be of no little value in their work. If the 
Father so receives the repentant sinner, surely his followers must not 
refuse. The incident of the elder brother appears to have another 
interest. Does it reflect the opposition to missionary endeavor which 
was much in evidence in the early Christian community according to 
our sources? The visit of Peter to Caesarea was followed by a summons 
to explain his attitude and conduct.t It might well be that the story of 
the elder brother was an answer to this hostility to the broader sphere 
of activity and the more generous spirit which was manifesting itself 
in the missionary wing of the church. 

So much for the interest of the church’s general missionary activity. 
The questions now confront us: At what place and at what time did 
such situations obtain as seem to be reflected in the sections which have 
just been discussed? There are three phases of the church’s missionary 
endeavor set forth: (1) In the sending of the Seventy with the accom- 
panying instructions there is little, if anything, to show the area to which 
their labors were to be confined. It is doubtless a Palestinian mission— 
the whole atmosphere is Jewish—but whether it is a mission which 
includes Gentiles or is limited to Jews is not easy to determine. We are, 
however, safe in saying that it represents a missionary activity in a 
territory beyond that which the Twelve were able to comprehend. 
The questions as to the authority of those who were not of the Twelve 
and the conduct of missionaries were such as must early have created 
no little difficulty. In what place would a pronouncement on such 
questions be made? Undoubtedly in Jerusalem. Jerusalem was not 
only the headquarters for Christian activity, it was also the seat of the 


t Acts 11:1 ff. 
538 


SOME NON-MARKAN ELEMENTS IN LUKE 21 


Twelve with whatever authority accrued to them. Such a position 
of leadership and prominence is shown in Acts 4:32-35; 6:1 ff.; 8:14. 
Moreover, we are told that the apostles remained there after the perse- 
cution had scattered the members of the Jerusalem communities abroad 
throughout the land.t_ That it would be from their circle or from their 
community that such a pronouncement on this new activity would 
issue is favored by several things: (1) The apostles were the channels 
of tradition and from them must come the words of Jesus. (2) The 
position of the Jerusalem church with its apostolic leaders in the council 
of Acts, chap. 15.2, The position of James in that church is to be 
explained on the ground of his relationship to Jesus. That Jerusalem’ 
was and remained the center of Christian activity for a considerable 
time—that she was the mother-church to which all others looked with 
a certain esteem and deference—is witnessed by the attitude of Paul in 
the controversy just referred to and by his earnest desire to win the 
favor of the Jerusalem church, as shown by his conciliatory efforts in 
gathering contributions and his endeavor to avoid occasions of offense.3 
(3) There was no other center which was of sufficient importance or 
enjoyed sufficient prestige to enable it to speak at such a time. 

As to the time at which such a situation obtained, we are dependent 
on the account in the Acts.4 With the exception of the Pentecostal 


t Acts 8:1. 2 Cf. also Gal., chaps. 1, 2. 
3 E.g., the assumption of a vow, Acts 21: 23 ff. 


4A criticism might issue against some of the arguments advanced in this discus- 
sion to the effect that too much reliance is placed on the Acts of the Apostles and too 
large an assumption made of its historical accuracy. Such a point would not seem to 
the writer to be well taken. It is but a general accuracy that is assumed. The 
arguments rest, not on details in Acts, but on movements and tendencies which seem 
to bear the marks of verisimilitude and which in some cases have corroborative 
testimony. For example, there may be reason for questioning some of the details 
of the imprisonment of the apostles as recorded in Acts 5:17 ff., but that by no means 
necessarily invalidates the general statement of imprisonment and that at the hands 
of the officials to whom it is ascribed. Similarly, some features of the Samaritan 
mission may fail to carry conviction of accuracy without involving a refusal to accept 
the general fact of missionary expansion to Samaria. In general outline we must 
depend upon Acts for our knowledge of the lines along which Christianity moved in 
its onward march, and the statements of the book regarding the large features of 
development and expansion seem worthy of credence. 

The criticism might carry farther to the point of objecting to what might appear 
to be a very different attitude toward the two books generally admitted to proceed 
from the same author. It may be said that the historicity of the Acts of the Apostles 
is assumed while that of the Third Gospel is tacitly challenged. The first point has 
just been considered. Already it has been pointed out (p. 13) that this essay does 


539 


22 HISTORICAL AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES 


outburst (and that is really not an exception) the activity of the early 
Christians as set forth in chaps. 1-7 of this book was confined entirely 
to Jerusalem. It is, of course, more than probable that isolated Chris- 
tians and perhaps isolated communities of Christians existed outside 
Jerusalem at this period. There was such a group at Damascus very 
soon after the dispersion of Christians from Jerusalem (Acts 9:1 ff.). 
But so far as our sources take us, there was no definite or widespread 
propaganda outside Jerusalem until after the death of Stephen. At 
that time the church which was at Jerusalem suffered persecution and 
“they were all scattered abroad throughout the regions of Judea and 
Samaria, except the apostles. .... They therefore that were scattered 
abroad went everywhere preaching the word.”’ There seems to be no 
good reason for doubting the general accuracy of this statement. We 
know that the church did break beyond the Jerusalem limits and such 
an incident as that described has the marks of verisimilitude. When 
the young organization embarked on such a project as this there would 
be insistent need of an authoritative basis for such work to encourage 
missionaries and to silence objections, as well as to give directions which 
should govern the new enterprise. In such a situation emphasis upon 
the tradition of the mission of the Seventy would be natural. 
Passing to the second phase, that represented in the parable of the 
Supper, we have the missionary situation after the appeal has been 
made to the Jews and has met with but a scant measure of success. One 
of the interesting phenomena of the development and spread of early 
Christianity is the comparative silence regarding its progress in Palestine 
apart from Jerusalem. Were the bonds of Judaism too strong to be 
broken, the patriotic desire for a world-ruling kingdom too deeply 
rooted to be removed? But the early Christian missionaries were Jews 
and to them the refusal of the gospel by their compatriots and its accept- 
ance by others constituted a problem of the most serious kind. Amid 
such questionings the parable of the Supper would serve as a solution 
and would perform a function beyond that which it could exercise in 
any other situation we know. Again, we see that the probable place 
of issue is Jerusalem, and the time would be the early part of the Gentile 
not concern itself with the question of historicity, but is engaged in another task. 
Regarding such a tacit challenging the following is evident upon even slight reflection: 
The fact that certain traditions owe their preservation and literary formulation to 
the necessity of meeting needs in the early Christian community in no way necessarily 
impairs the essential historicity of these traditions. The presence or extent of modi- 
fication induced by the exigencies of the time when they received oral or written form. 


is another problem. 
540 


SOME NON-MARKAN ELEMENTS IN LUKE 23 


mission. That is to say, it comes from the period when the Palestinian 
Christians were gradually reaching out with the gospel to those who were 
not their fellow-countrymen before the Gentile activity of Paul and the 
Antioch church.* 

The third phase, the fifteenth chapter, comes from a situation very 
similar to that just outlined, namely, when the question of contact 
with those who were unclean from a Jewish point of view was before 
the community and when the value and importance of mission work 
required elucidation and emphasis. As in the case of the previous 
sections, the place where this question would become acute was Jerusalem 
and the time would be at the dawn of the church’s wider mission. 

Thus we have these three sections, strongly missionary in character, 
falling in tolerably well with situations and needs which we know to 
have existed in the Jewish-Christian community at Jerusalem in the 
very early years of its life. It is, of course, impossible to fix accurately 
the date, but the period 35 A.D.-50 A.D. would meet the facts fairly 
well. The year 35 A.D. is an approximate date for the commencement 
of missionary endeavor, and by 50 A.D. the emphasis was being shifted 
from the general question as to the propriety of a Gentile propaganda 
to the narrower question of the admission of Gentiles to Christian status 
and privileges apart from the observance of certain Jewish requirements. 
As to the formulation of such traditions at this time as against their 
previous existence and emphasis one cannot but wonder at the tardiness 
of the apostles in moving out to larger spheres if they possessed the 
definite declarations regarding mission work which now appear in our 
gospels. Moreover, if the universalism of some of the traditions was 


Cf. Acts 8:26 ff.; chap. το; 11:19-26. It may be urged that the parable of 
the Supper would function as well after the Gentile mission of Paul as in the first break 
of the Christians with the Jews and the corresponding turning of the Gentiles. That 
is to say, the Jewish Christians always intended to go to the Gentiles with the gospel, 
but not in Paul’s way, and this is a reflection of that later phase of the perplexing prob- 
lem. Against this may be placed the real inner struggle of the Jerusalem Christians 
when the first overtures to the Gentiles were made by Peter and others. It is highly 
probable that a tradition such as this would rise in the keenness of the initial contest. 
Secondly, there was little remaining of the Gentile question after Paul had done his 
work. His success was too overwhelming. Whatever was the actual result of the 
Jerusalem conference, the intensity of the problem of a Gentile mission could never 
be the same afterward. Moreover, the general Jerusalemic character of the material 
in this whole section tells against the later formulation of this paragraph. The center 
of missionary activity and missionary struggle was transferred from Jerusalem to 
Greek soil after the apostles left that city, and this greatly decreases the probability 
of such a tradition arising in this latter environment. 


541 


24 HISTORICAL AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES 


existent, one cannot fail to be amazed at the difficulties which Paul 
and others had to overcome in practicing it. Is it not at least probable, 
in view of the historical fact of the confinement of apostolic and Chris- 
tian work to Jerusalem for a number of years, that it was the essence of 
the movement itself combined with the external situation which drove 
Christianity out to a wider conquest? In such a case it is quite com- 
prehensible that these traditions were given form in the place and at the 
time when the need for them was most acute. 


II. THE SAMARITAN INTEREST 


There is another interest found in the material under consideration 
which might have been subsumed under the previous section, but it is 
of such a definite character and of such importance that a separate treat- 
ment has been thought proper. It is what we may call the Samaritan 
interest. Nowhere else in the Synoptics do the Samaritans come into 
prominence as in this peculiarly Lukan material. In fact, Samaria 
or the Samaritans are mentioned but once in the Synoptics outside the 
section Luke 9:51—18:14. This is in Matt. 10:5, where an injunction 
is given to the twelve disciples to avoid any Samaritan city. In the 
Fourth Gospel two rather curious references to the Samaritans appear. 
The fourth chapter is for the most part concerned with the conversation 
of Jesus and the Samaritan woman. A very striking parenthesis 
occurs in vs. 9: ‘‘For the Jews have no dealings with the Samaritans.” 
In a passage still more striking' the Jews are represented as saying to 
Jesus: ‘Say we not well that thou art a Samaritan and hast a demon ?”’ 
In this Lukan material, however, the Samaritans occupy a position which, 
while not large absolutely, is of great importance by reason of contrast 
and by reason of the striking character of the passages containing the 
allusions. These passages are: (1) 9:51-56, in which the unwillingness 
of the Samaritans of a certain village to receive Jesus and extend him 
hospitality calls forth from the “ Boanerges,” on the one hand, a desire 
for vengeance, and from Jesus, on the other hand, a mild rebuke of his 
disciples’ impetuosity; (2) the parable of the Good Samaritan, 10:25 ff.; 
and (3) the story of the healing of the ten lepers, only one of whom, a 
Samaritan, returned to express gratitude for the benefits received, 
17:11 ff. That these people, so thoroughly neglected elsewhere in the 
Synoptics, should occupy such a position of prominence in these nine 
chapters surely merits our attention. The probable significance of the 
phenomenon we shall discuss later. 

t John 8:48. 

542 


SOME NON-MARKAN ELEMENTS IN LUKE 25 


We must turn aside for a moment to consider the relationship and 
feelings which existed between the orthodox Jews and the Samaritans. 
There is little reason to doubt the essential historicity of the story of 
the origin of the Samaritan people as given in II Kings 17:3 ff., although 
it is probable that more than one Assyrian king, possibly three, figured 
in the importations of colonists. The population resulting from the 
deportation of the inhabitants of the Northern Kingdom and the intro- 
duction of foreigners from various conquered countries to take their 
places was known by the name of Samaritan. However strong a strain 
of Israelitish blood was retained by the resulting mixed race, it was 
inevitable that the Jews who prided themselves on the maintenance of 
purity of blood should despise and look with contempt on those who 
persisted in calling themselves Nw "J without possessing the right 
so todo. This contempt is shown by the rabbinical term for this people, 
pnd. 2 

The exclusive policy of the rigid Jews would compel them to refuse 
recognition to a people of mixed blood, whose religion was under grave 
suspicion of containing foreign elements.? The old cleavage between 
North and South would easily revive to deepen the difference, and the 
politico-religious barrier thus formed would be hard to surmount. 
How formidable this barrier was is seen in the building of the temple 
on Mount Gerizim, to which the Samaritans could have been driven 
only after being convinced that reconciliation was impossible. The 
most frequent references to the relations which existed between the 
Jews and the Samaritans are found in Josephus, and while one does not 
receive the statements without caution, there is little reason to doubt 
that he represents the general attitude with fair accuracy. In the inter- 
biblical literature there are two references to the Samaritan people 
which indicate the hostility and contempt which a rigid Jew felt toward 
them. The first is in the Wisdom of Ben Sirach:3 “‘With two nations 
is my soul vexed and the third is no nation: They that sit upon the 
mountain of Seir, and the Philistines, and the foolish people that dwelleth 
in Shechem.”’ In the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs (Levi, 
chap. 7) we have the statement: “From this day shall Shechem be 
called the city of fools.”” The testimony of the rabbinical literature is 
not uniform, but there are not lacking indications that with many of 
the Jews the hostility was an abiding one. In some of its Samaritan 

1 Cf. Cuthah, II Kings 17:24. 

2 Cf. II Kings 17:33 ff. 


3 50:25 ff. 
543 


26 HISTORICAL AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES 


passages the New Testament gives an interesting light on the matter. 
The statement of Matthew,’ in which Jesus is represented as forbidding 
the missionary apostles to go into any city of the Samaritans, but to 
“ἐρο rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel,” sets forth strongly 
the difference which was made between the two peoples. The fact that 
such a word was allowed to remain in the mouth of Jesus at the time 
of the composition of Matthew is extremely suggestive in this regard. 
The refusal of the Samaritans to receive Jesus and his followers, as shown 
in Luke,? manifests the same attitude. The Johannine references in 
the fourth chapter, where the woman practically refuses a draught of 
water to Jesus on the ground that she is a Samaritan while he is a Jew, 
followed by the explanatory parenthesis mentioned above, “For the 
Jews have no dealings with [ask no favors of(?)] the Samaritans,” show 
that the distrust and dislike were deep and strong. The last reference 
in the gospels is that in which the term is applied to Jesus himself, and 
expresses the strongest contempt and antipathy.’ These statements 
in the gospels can be explained on no other ground than the existence 
of an intensely bitter feeling between those who considered themselves 
of pure Jewish blood and faith and the inhabitants of the central district 
of Palestine.‘ 

In the outline of the spread and development of early Christianity 
as presented in the Acts of the Apostles we find that no Christian work 
was done among the Samaritans before the dispersion which followed 
upon the persecution of the Jerusalem church. This is the case in spite 
of the stated command of the risen Lord to be witnesses in Judea and 
Samaria, and so forth.s In fact, when such work was undertaken it 
was in a way as great an innovation as the Gentile mission. The easy 
way in which the spread of the gospel among the Samaritans is recorded 
in the eighth chapter of Acts gives no hint of the difficulties, internal and 
external, which beset the Samaritan mission. Apparently it was a 
triumphant conquest on the part of Philip and the apostles Peter and 
John. Practically nothing is known of the Samaritan Christians in 
any organized way and it is probable that the terrible experiences of 
67 A.D.-70 A.D. shattered any such work. But that the Samaritan 
people as such were not evangelized is to be inferred from the massacre 

ΣΈ Θ᾽ 5: 29:51 ff. 3 John 8:48. 

4As to the persistence of feeling between Jews and Samaritans, see Schiirer, 
Geschichte des jiidischen Volkes, 4. Aufl., II, 18-23; The Jewish People in the Time of 
Jesus Christ, Div. II, Vol. I, pp. 5-8. 

5 Acts 1:8. 

544 


SOME NON-MARKAN ELEMENTS IN LUKE 27 


of the Galileans under the procuratorship of Cumanus, 48-52 A.D." 
The references in the gospels show that with the Christians the antip- 
athy persisted, which would be very doubtful if such a sweeping 
Christianizing had taken place. 

It would seem to be inevitable that, when the Christian missionaries 
went on Samaritan soil with the gospel message and offered the blessings 
of the kingdom to the people toward whom the orthodox Jews enter- 
tained such feelings, such a procedure would meet with strong opposition. 
A study of the early chapters of Acts shows clearly that the Christians 
at Jerusalem did not for some time differentiate themselves from the 
orthodox Jews save on the question of the messiahship of Jesus.2. The 
whole of the controversy over circumcision ultimately rests on this 
fact. This being so, it must have seemed to strict Jews, in spite of 
points of contact between Jews and Samaritans, a casting of the chil- 
dren’s bread to dogs to give the promises to the schismatics of the 
middle country. The name of the Samaritan missionary—Philip— 
and his appointment among the Seven raises the interesting question 
whether or not he was a Hellenist and possibly of more liberal views than 
many of the Palestinian Jews. 

Bearing in mind these two facts, (1) the steady and persistent 
dislike which obtained between Jews and Samaritans and which Chris- 
tianity did not easily obliterate from the Jewish heart, (2) that nowhere 
in the New Testament apart from the eighth chapter of Acts (this is 
shadowed by the Simon Magus story) are the Samaritans mentioned 
with approval except in this peculiarly Lukan section, we proceed to 
discover what interest could prompt or be served by such a departure 
from the otherwise constant attitude. It would, of course, be easy 
to say that it was the universalism of Jesus manifesting itself. But 
there are grave difficulties in the way of such a solution. 

The allusions themselves are instructive. The first one? recognizes 
the general attitude of the Samaritans toward the Jews and, conversely, 
that of the Jews toward the Samaritans. The occasion of the hostility 
is said to be the purpose of Jesus to go to Jerusalem. Undoubtedly the 
apostles thought they were showing true loyalty to their Master and 
true devotion to their nation in their request for vengeance, and the 
rebuke of Jesus in favor of the despised enemies must have sounded 
strange in their ears. Yet it is a very mild form of approval, if that 
be the correct term, which the passage shows. ‘The parable of the Good 

t Josephus, Ant., XX, 118-36; B.J., ΤΙ, 232-46. 

Acts 5:1 ff.. chap. 13; 75:12(?), 30. 3 Luke 9:51-56. 

545 


28 HISTORICAL AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES 


Samaritan sets this people in a much better light. The story and its 
setting are too well known to require repetition. It will not be disputed 
that the central teaching of the story is that of neighborliness, but that 
does not entirely explain the selection of the Samaritan as its shining 
example. It is true that the Samaritan had the advantage of proximity 
in being chosen for such a purpose, but the point could have been made 
equally well, if not better, had a Gentile been pressed into service. It 
is not easy to think that the three classes of men mentioned—priest, 
Levite, and Samaritan—merely chanced to be selected to illustrate the 
point. There is a suspicion that there is underlying a plea for the 
people whose representative could rise higher in the scale of mercy and 
generous service than the religious leaders of the self-complacent Jews. 
The Samaritan appears here in strong contrast with those who were 
supposed to typify the best in Israel’s life, and the inference is inevitable 
that such a people could not be wholly bad. The third instance is also 
a case in which the Samaritan is set in the best possible light by contrast. 
Of the ten who had been the recipients of the blessing of healing only 
one cared to return to thank his benefactor. Here the Samaritan is 
not the model of service and neighborliness as above, but he stands forth 
as an example of gratitude. The marked contrast with the others, 
ostensibly Jews, is expressed in the words, ‘“‘Were there none found that 
returned to give glory to God, save this stranger ?’”’ The three allusions 
seem to be in climactic order of favorableness, but it would not be well 
to press such a point. It is difficult to avoid the conclusion that we have 
here traditions formulated or emphasized to meet the same general 
situation. Can we discover a situation which would be met by 
them ? 

The previous discussion makes it evident that it was the inception 
and process of the Samaritan mission. The very fact that Jews brought 
the new message could not fail to arouse antagonism among the Samari- 
tans. To them the new propaganda would be little more than an 
attempt to induce them to acknowledge the purity and superiority of 
the rigid Jews. It does not require a great stretch of the imagination 
to conceive that some villages showed decided opposition to the mis- 
sionaries, thus discouraging them and arousing the slumbering fires 
of hatred. In such a case what more powerful argument could be used 
than the story of the Samaritan churlishness, the refusal of Jesus to 
execute vengeance, and the calm turning from one village to another? 
It is an inimitable piece of work, looked at from the standpoint of what 
might easily be the pressing needs of the Samaritan mission. 

546 


SOME NON-MARKAN ELEMENTS IN LUKE 29 


But all the hostility did not emanate from Samaria. The Jerusalem 
Christians, some of them at least, were far too strict Jews to look on 
this proffer of the kingdom to these semi-aliens with equanimity. Very 
easily could mutterings against the movement arise, and even positive 
criticism. With what tremendous force could a word of the Master 
be used, if one could be obtained, in such a situation! Here we have 
the Good Samaritan, with the positive qualities of ethical righteousness, 
towering above the religious representatives of the Jews. Ifa Samaritan 
could be of this sort, surely the people were worthy of the best evangel- 
izing efforts of the Christians. The great commandment is love to God 
and man. Up to the point of missionary departure it does not appear 
that the church had placed any broad emphasis on the latter. As soon 
as it began to be understood, the wider appeal was inevitable. The 
Samaritan is your neighbor; therefore see to it that he gets the same 
opportunity for blessing as you.’ This story would be of real value 
in combating what would seem to be an unavoidable opposition to a 
Samaritan mission. A similar use could be made of the healing of the 
ten lepers. That the only one of the ten Palestinians who returned to 
acknowledge the benefits received was a Samaritan, a stranger, would 
tend to show that these people were not wanting in proper feelings of 
gratitude and would acknowledge their indebtedness to their benefactors 
beyond many who plumed themselves on their pure Jewish extraction. 
The manifestation of thankfulness would do much to break down the 
bars of prejudice. 

Two lines of argument, then, seem to suggest that these Samaritan 
sections gained prominence at the time of the dispersion of the Jeru- 
salem Christians, mentioned in Acts 8:1-2. These lines are: (1) the 
very high degree of probability that such a mission would create antago- 
nism and opposition on the part of Jews who could not quite forget the 
deep cleft between them and their neighbors; (2) the isolated character 
of these phenomena of favorable consideration of the Samaritans in the 
whole field of primitive Christian literature. It scarcely needs argument 
to show that the place where such traditions would be of use, and, there- 
fore, assume the form in which they could be used, was Jerusalem. 
There the apostles remained even in the days of the persecution (an 
indication of the closeness with which they adhered to Judaism); to 
them and to the church in that place the rebuffed missionaries would 
naturally turn for encouragement and instruction. There also would 

t Tt will be noticed that there is a change of application of the term “neighbor.” 
The Samaritan is the neighbor in vs. 36, but it should be the victim of the thieves. 

547 


90 HISTORICAL AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES 


most naturally arise the opposition to the movement which threatened 
to break down the barriers which the brooding and hatred of ages had 
raised. ‘Thus we find the traditions of this specific Samaritan interest 
aligning themselves with those of the more general missionary interest 
in their pragmatic character and in that Jerusalem was the place of 
_ their promulgation. 


III. THE RECIPROCAL OPPOSITION OF PHARISEES AND CHRISTIANS 


Readers of the gospels are so familiar with the differences which 
arose between Jesus and the religious leaders of his people that but scant 
attention is paid to features of the tradition which fit but strangely into 
the career of Jesus as we know it. It is not to be doubted that there 
was opposition between Jesus and the scribes and Pharisees, and that 
it was an important, in some respects a determining, factor in his career. 
But it may well be questioned whether the portrayal of these classes, 
as we have it, is quite a fair and unprejudiced one. Religious prejudice 
is an adept at giving a twist to the facts. Modern Jewish apologists 
have risen to protest against this depicting of their compatriots, and to 
declare the inaccuracy and inadequacy of the description.t From un- 
prejudiced Jewish sources we gain the impression that these apologists 
have many things in their favor. 

One cannot avoid questioning whether if this hostility of the 
Pharisees to Jesus had ceased at his death and resurrection the bitter- 
ness and vituperation which some parts of our gospel story manifest 
would have been remembered and recorded. It does not make pleasant 
reading, and it is hard to believe that the early Christians would have 
preserved such traditions and have given them prominence if the 
antagonisms of the Jewish religionists to the thought and attitude of 
Jesus had not been transferred to his followers. 

We learn from the early chapters of the Acts of the Apostles that 
such opposition did persist, and that it rose at last into persecution. 
It is true that the Sadducees seem to have the prominent part in any 
proceedings against the Christians, but this may be accounted for in 
several ways. (1) The high priests, who possessed great authority, 
belonged to the Sadducean party. To them would be the most telling 

*Cf. the discussion among Schiirer, Abraham, Montefiore, and Menzies, in 
Geschichte des jiidischen Volkes, 4. Aufl., Il, 537-79; The Jewish People in the Time 
of Jesus Christ, Div. II, Vol. II, pp. 90-125, Jewish Quarterly Review, ΧΙ, 626-42; 
Hibbert Journal, I, 335-46, 789-92; cf. also Revue des études juives, LI, 191-216; 
LIT, 1-23. 

548 


SOME NON-MARKAN ELEMENTS IN LUKE Sai 


appeal in the matter of safeguarding the national religion from every- 
thing that had in it the possibilities of inconvenience for the official 
class. Already in the case of the death of Jesus the Pharisees, generally 
their bitter opponents, had joined hands with them. It was an easy 
matter to continue the alliance against the followers of Jesus. (2) The 
Sadducees were dominant in influence in the Sanhedrin, and were the 
officials. To act legally in a matter of this sort their interest and support 
must be enlisted. (3) The doctrine of the resurrection which the 
Christians preached would be offensive to them. 

But the jealous party in the matter of opposing innovations on the 
national religion was the Pharisees. This had been true at all times 
since the Maccabean period. The interference of the authorities with 
the apostles in which the Sadducees appear to be the leaders' was but 
a herald of the coming storm. Even in these cases the Pharisees would 
not lack representatives in the punitive court—the Sanhedrin. It 
is quite possible that they were the real instigators of the opposition, 
as in the case of Jesus. At any rate, when severe persecution makes 
its appearance at the time of the death of Stephen and during the fol- 
lowing months it is not a Sadducee, but a Pharisee of the Pharisees, 
that is the moving spirit and the most active agent. Here again the 
authority of the high priest has to be invoked to give an air of legality 
to the matter.2 The incentive to move against Stephen and the sect 
of which he was a member is very similar to that which actuated the 
Pharisees in their opposition to Jesus. The sanctity of their religion was 
being invaded, its permanency and authority disputed. There are 
many indications that the Pharisees were the moving spirits in the perse- 
cution of the early church, working, of course, in conjunction with the 
priestly authorities, who would be aroused on personal rather than on 
religious grounds. 

What situation do the sections of Luke under consideration reflect ? 
The first section is one of considerable length and extends from 11:37 
to12:12. It is readily admitted that much of this fits well in the osten- 
sible situation and represents a fairly acute stage of the controversy 
between Jesus and the Pharisees. But there are features which suggest 
a later situation. The intensely Jewish atmosphere of this section is 
shown in 11:41, “But give for alms those things which are within and 
behold all things are clean unto you.” That is to say, that which makes 

ΛΟ Ξ AC ΤΠ} δ: τη. 

3 Αοίβ g:1. As to Paul’s energy and persistence in persecution, cf. Gal. 1:13, 
Base bhi: 2:6, 

549 


32 HISTORICAL AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES 


clean is almsgiving. It was among the Jews that almsgiving was almost 
tantamount to righteousness.t| One wonders if the ἁρπαγῆς of 11:39 
is material and refers to the wealth of the Pharisees when compared 
with the poverty of the Christians. It would not be hard to find there 
an added cause of censure.? “Ye build the tombs of the prophets and 
your fathers killed them. So ye are witnesses and consent unto the 
works of your fathers: for they killed them, and ye build their tombs. 
Therefore also said the wisdom of God, I will send unto them prophets 
and apostles, and some of them they shall kill and persecute; that the 
blood of all the prophets which was shed from the foundation of the 
world may be required from this generation. .... Woe unto you 
lawyers! for ye took away the key of knowledge: ye entered not in 
yourselves and them that were entering ye hindered.” How could 
it be said that these Pharisees were witnesses and participants of the 
works of their fathers? It may be that it meant that the scribes were 
perpetuating the same system that killed the prophets, but that is not 
an adequate explanation. In the time of Jesus, so far as we know, no 
prophet, save himself, suffered at the hands of the Pharisees. But 
the matter gains point when we link up the memory of their part in his 
death, their supreme sin, with the persecution and death of Christians.3 
The combination “prophets and apostles” is very natural as coming 
from a primitive Christian community. These were two important 
orders in the early church.4| The prophets enjoyed a place of prominence 
and esteem among early Christians and their words were considered to 
have authority. With regard to the term ‘“‘apostles,’’s it is a matter of 
grave doubt whether the title was given to the Twelve in the days of 
Jesus. In Eph. 4:7 ff. ‘“‘apostleship”’ is a gift of the ascended Christ, 
that is, of the Spirit, and is placed in the same list as prophets, evan- 
gelists, and so forth. It is probable that this title was conferred on the 
intimates of Jesus to mark their peculiar qualifications as witnesses of 
the resurrection. In any case the collocation ‘‘prophets and apostles”’ 
admirably fits the situation of the early church at Jerusalem, and the 
passage suggests a time when the leaders of the church were suffering 


ΟΣ Tobs4:6 ft. 
2 Note the attitude of the early Christians toward wealth. 
3 Cf. Acts, chaps. 7, 8; 12:1 ff. 


4 As to the position of Christian prophets, cf. Acts 11:27; 13:1; I Cor. 12:10, 
28 f.; Revelation, and patristic references. 

5 Cf. Ernest D. Burton, ‘‘The Office of Apostle in the Early Church,” American 
Journal of Theology, XVI, 561-88. 


550 


SOME NON-MARKAN ELEMENTS IN LUKE 33 


at the hands of the Jewish authorities. For such a situation and its 
effect on the early church the twelfth chapter of Acts may be consulted. 
“This generation”’ is to be held responsible for the whole process' and 
the penalty imposed is the abandonment of the Jews by God and the 
working of the power of evil among them. The rejection by the Jews 
of the proffered blessings of the kingdom through Jesus is set forth 
in vs. 52 and the greater blame attached to the νομικού. But Luke 
12:2 ff. suggests still more strongly the Apostolic age and the situation 
of the early church. The comforting assurance that the thing spoken 
secretly should have wide publicity would be of immense importance 
in reviving the drooping spirits of the Jerusalem Christians when, under 
stress of Pharisaic opposition, they had, at least for a time, to carry on 
their meetings secretly. It might well be that some wondered how they 
were to prosecute their work when publicity was prevented.” 

That this section represents the Christian church under Pharisaic 
persecution seems clear from Luke 12:4 ff. There is a worse fate than 
bodily death, so terrible that it should be feared: the death of the soul, 
which death can be brought about by apostasy and denial. It is true 
that the Pharisees cause fear by the exercise of their persecuting power, 
but it is far better to suffer at their hands than to be unfaithful to God. 
Moreover, this suffering on their part is no indication that God has 
forgotten. He has numbered the hairs of their heads and everything 
is under his permissive control. The passage regarding confession or 
denial of the Son of Man would be of inestimable value in encoura- 
ging steadfastness and checking any tendency to apostasy. That such 
encouragement and warning were necessary stands almost in the nature 
of the case. The mention of the synagogues, the rulers, and the author- 
ities in Luke 12:11 fits the Jewish-Christian situation in Jerusalem 
and its mission to Jews as it fits no other. The theme of the whole 
paragraph’ is Christianity under persecution by the Pharisees. The 
Christians are to do their task, remain faithful, endure trials under 
the assurance of ultimate triumph. The appositeness of this section 
to the situation in Palestine, especially in Jerusalem, at the time of the 
Pharisaic opposition seems too clear to require further argument. It 
seems highly probable that we have here a primitive tradition regarding 
the Pharisaic religion and attitude adapted and brought into use in the 
time of its need. There does not appear to be any real reason for the 

Pibuke 11: 50-51. 

2 For such prevention, cf. Acts 4:18; 5, 28; 12:12. 


T2112. 


551 


34 HISTORICAL AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES 


preservation of this tradition unless it was called forth by continued 
opposition on the part of the sect so severely censured. 

The anti-Pharisaic interest—for the expression of which we have 
found adequate cause—appears again in Luke 16:14-15. The section 
16:14-17 seems to be composed of two originally independent parts, 
at least logically such, which interrupt the main thought. Vss. 14-15 
contain the application to the Pharisees of the previous statements 
regarding the allurements and dangers of wealth, and suggest that in 
the gathering of their wealth their trust of the true riches had been 
betrayed. A further recurrence of the feeling against the Pharisees 
is seen in Luke 18:9-14 in the comparison of the Pharisee and the 
publican in their attitude of spirit in prayer. However genuine a tradi- 
tion this might be from the standpoint of Jesus, it would never be of 
such significance as when the Christians, drawn from humble ranks, 
suffering privations and hardships, wondering as all Jews did why their 
piety was not rewarded with prosperity, became conscious of the wealth 
and the power and the unrighteousness of the Pharisees and oppressed 
with the burden of the contrast. Did the rank and file—yes, even the 
apostles themselves—reach this consciousness before their actual experi- 
ence with the sect in Jerusalem? That their Master with his supreme 
insight saw thus clearly may be indisputable, but did even the clearest- 
visioned of his followers attain this? It is quite probable that this 
story gained currency in the days when the leaders of the church were 
antagonizing the Pharisees and when they wished to show to their half- 
doubting followers that in the sight of God they were the possessors of 
the true riches. 


IV. THE EMPHASIS ON DISCIPLESHIP 


In the very nature of the case the problems of discipleship, with 
their almost bewildering variety, would obtrude themselves very 
prominently in the early years of the Christian movement. The 
Christian body was composed of people who had broken, or were break- 
ing, from moorings to which they had long held fast in safety and with 
more or less tranquillity. Many, possibly the overwhelming majority, 
of these people were from the humbler walks of life, uneducated, lacking 
in powers of self-control, creatures of impulse to a degree, suspicious 
and wayward, very human. The organization to which they attached 
themselves was new and untried, the motives which led to the attach- 
ment almost as varied as the people were numerous. It was a period 
of experiment, fluidity, uncertainty, and trial. The possibilities for 

552 


SOME NON-MARKAN ELEMENTS IN LUKE 35 


vagaries were many, and the need of instruction, encouragement, 
admonition, and control urgent. It would be strange indeed if such 
conditions and such need had not left their mark on the traditions of 
the time. In the section before us the interest of control of discipleship 
emerges very early. The passage Luke 9:57—61, which contains some 
very perplexing matters if interpreted from the standpoint of Jesus, 
becomes interesting and illuminating when looked at from the point 
of view of the early Christian community and the interest now under 
consideration. The language is so striking that one suspects a very 
insistent need for a clear and strong statement of the terms of disciple- 
ship. The glad abandon of the new convert is expressed in the words, 
“T will follow thee whithersoever thou goest’’; and is in turn met by the 
ardor-dampening, ‘The foxes have holes and the birds of the heaven 
their nests, but the Son of Man hath not where to lay his head.” If 
there were those pressing into the new movement thoughtlessly or with 
hopes of any material benefit in the kingdom, such a reply must have 
given them pause. If there be any motive of self-aggrandizement it 
would be better to follow foxes, for the Son of Man has nothing material 
to offer. It does not require a high degree of imagination to think of 
such motives as actuating ones. The murmuring of the Grecian Jews 
regarding their widows,’ the communistic experiment,? and the sordid- 
ness of Ananias are straws which indicate the current. 

The next statement of the passage‘ is an exceedingly strange one: 
“Let the dead bury their own dead, but go thou and publish the king- 
dom of God.” On the face of it, the saying seems perfectly heartless, 
but it is somewhat intelligible if we can think of it as meeting a situation 
when the performance of filial duties threatened to interfere with a 
matter that seemed to be of supreme importance. It is probable that 
missionary tasks necessitated some hardships which might well cause 
some faint souls to waver. Such a word as this, as coming from the lips 
of Jesus and touching a thing of such importance to the Jews as decent 
burial,’ would teach that true discipleship and membership in the king- 
dom called for the acme of self-abnegation. After this word, any plea 
on this or similar grounds would be ruled out of court. Very similar, 
but with a slightly different emphasis, is the third statement and reply.® 
One cannot but feel that the answer to a very natural desire to bid 
farewell to friends is harsh and unyielding. It is a minor thing for which 
to deem one unworthy of the kingdom. But if the statement be applied 

t Acts 6:1 ff. 3 Acts 5:1 ff. 5 Cf. Tob. 12183 2:3 ΠΣ 

2 Acts 4:32-36. 485. 59-60. 6 Vss. 61-62. 

553 


90 HISTORICAL AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES 


to a time when social and domestic ties and duties and the bond of blood 
were threatening to interfere with devotion to the new movement and 
its tasks, its value as coming from Jesus is instantly seen. That such 
a situation arose frequently in the early church is easy to believe. The 
scantiness of our sources and the unlikelihood of such a phase being 
directly recorded does not permit a definite assignment to a specific 
situation. The epistolary literature of the New Testament reflects 
similar or analogous situations. The point is that the paragraph repre- 
sents Jesus as requiring of disciples absolute devotion and sacrifice. 
If Jesus demanded these or similar things no disciple who recognized 
his lordship could refuse them. 

The same interest is clearly seen in a passage which has been dis- 
cussed under the previous topic, Luke 12:1 ff. Here the disciples are 
exhorted to steadfastness and fidelity under persecution, evidently a 
persecution on the part of the Pharisees. The designation of the disciples 
as friends (φίλοι) in 12:4 is a fine touch and would serve to dignify 
discipleship. There is a strong exhortation to fidelity and watchful- 
ness in 12:35 ff. The “burning lamp” and “girded loins” are striking 
figures of watchfulness and preparedness. This would seem to represent 
a time when the Christians were beginning to wonder at the delay of the 
Lord’s return, which they had thought from the beginning would be 
immediate. With the wonderment are mingled some disappointment 
and a relaxing of vigilance, perhaps also a looseness of conduct and an 
indifference to work. The promise that the Master will come suddenly 
and himself minister to their needs and exalt them would fit such a 
situation excellently. That such situations of impatience and wonder- 
ment did exist is shown by Acts 1:6-7; I Cor., chap. 15; I Thess. 
4:13 ff. It is a Christian recurrence of the problem, part of which the 
Jews solved by the doctrine of the resurrection. 

There is a further appearance of the interest in Luke 12:49-53. 
It is not hard to think that a religious movement such as Christianity 
interfered with social and family relations. We scarcely need to look 
beyond our own generation and its denominationalism for proof. Amid 
the bitter differences which could so easily obtain when some members 
of a family or group embraced the new faith, what more telling word 
from the Master could be pressed into service than this? One of the 
purposes of the Lord’s life on earth was that these divisions and struggles 
might come to pass. The pragmatic value of the passage is very evident. 

Another outcropping of the interest in discipleship occurs in Luke 
14:25 ff. The demands made on the true and worthy disciple and the 

554 


SOME NON-MARKAN ELEMENTS IN LUKE 37 


characteristics of such a one are here set forth. The previous paragraph 
has suggested how bitter an opposition could arise when Christianity 
differentiated itself from Judaism and began to be recognized as a differ- 
ent sect. The bitterness of feeling, the depth of resentment, and the 
measures of persecution which could obtain among members of the same 
household have a modern analogy on many mission fields. It would 
not be at all surprising if, in the face of social opposition and the hostile 
forces of domestic relations exerted in the same direction, not a few 
converts wavered in their resolution and threatened to apostasize. In 
such a case the reference to hatred of those nearest by ties of blood and 
to the bearing of severe discipline as typified by the term “‘cross,”’ the 
reference to these as absolute essentials to true discipleship and, there- 
fore, to participation in the blessings of the kingdom, would be a most 
potent force in steadying the wavering and restraining the feet of those 
who were faltering. The fact of apostasy in the early Christian com- 
munity needs little argument. As soon as our sources expand, we find 
it appearing in Paul’s work and causing him no little embarrassment 
and sorrow. Such apostates would be the occasion of much scandal 
and a serious hindrance to other converts. For the purpose of prevent- 
ing hasty professions of Christian faith which would later be quickly 
denied under stress of privation, persecution, or opposition of any kind, 
the illustrations regarding counting the cost and planning the whole 
campaign in order to avoid the mockery of one’s fellows and the sting 
of defeat would be strong weapons. These two illustrations are followed 
by the categorical statement that nothing under heaven must be allowed 
to stand between the disciple and the claims of his Lord.t 

These passages do not complete the number which are concerned 
with statements regarding discipleship. Luke 17:1~-10 concerns itself 
ultimately with the community life. The “little ones” are believers 
and some persons or things are causing them to stumble. It is not 
possible to say with any degree of assurance what are the causes of 
offense, but the seriousness of the matter is indisputable. It may be 
that the persecutors are here referred to and that on them the curse 
falls. But with equal, even with greater, probability, if we take ‘“‘thy 
brother” of vs. 3 into consideration, the reference is to the treatment 
of the weak brother by some stronger one. This treatment is according 
to a standard which tends to discourage the weaker one and cause him 
to fallaway. The seriousness of such a situation is clear. The exhorta- 
tions to forgiveness? breathe the spirit of some generous soul and suggest 

t Vs. 33. OV 55: 3-4. 

555 


98 HISTORICAL AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES 


that too stringent demands had been made by some puritanical dis- 
ciplinarians and forgiveness and restoration withheld. 

The following verses, especially 7-10, seem to indicate that some 
were beginning to plume themselves on the amount and quality of 
the service they were rendering. This might easily happen where the 
labors of some had been more successful than those of others. Thoughts 
would naturally fly to the greater rewards of the kingdom, and such a 
spirit would have large possibilities of creating discontent and dissen- 
sion. It would be very salutary and of great force to have a word of 
the Master which would tell them that after the utmost service had 
been rendered by them there was no cause for congratulation, but 
rather for humility of spirit; all they have done is but the mere fulfilment 
of duty. If thanks are expressed and blessing bestowed it is not on the 
basis of desert or merit, it is gratis. 

Thus we see that the matter of discipleship bulks large in this 
material. There will be no inclination to deny that problems similar 
to those which are met by these sections arose wherever Christian com- 
munities came into being and flourished. It is simply the emergence 
of the human. Since this is so, it is not easy to tie down any section 
to a specific place or situation with any degree of assurance. But we 
may be confident that when these problems arose, problems which 
were vital to the church, no time would be lost in bringing to bear an 
authoritative word that would meet the situation. The place where 
these questions would first obtrude themselves and demand answer was 
almost certainly Jerusalem. The reference to the burial of the dead, 
the Pharisaic persecution, the impatience at the delay of the Lord’s 
coming, and the pluming of one’s self on greatness of service are primarily 
Jewish and Jerusalemic. While demonstration is not possible, there is 
much to be said in favor of the hypothesis that these traditions took 
form to meet situations in the Jerusalem community, or at least arose 
in Jerusalem, the center of apostolic tradition, to meet situations in 
the Christian communities on Palestinian soil. 


V. THE ASCETIC INTEREST 


In discussing the opposition to the Pharisees which seems to have 
obtained in the early church, we noticed occasional flashes of censure 
of their wealth-accumulating propensities combined with words of com- 
fort to the poverty-ridden Christians. This last feature reappears 

τ Cf. the request of James and John and the indignation of the other disciples. 
Mark 10:35-41. 

556 


SOME NON-MARKAN ELEMENTS IN LUKE 39 


emphasized and strengthened in what we have called the ascetic interest. 
The first instance is in Luke 10:38-42 where Martha makes her appeal 
to Jesus against Mary. It is rather strange that the Son of Man who 
came ‘eating and drinking” should apparently rebuke the generous 
hospitality of his hostess. The matter takes on a new color from the 
standpoint of an interest which is either combating a tendency to indul- 
gence and luxury or endeavoring to overcome the allurement of the “good 
things of 1116. The exaltation of the “good part which shall not be 
taken away’’ would serve such an interest. Whatever the interpretation 
of the “one thing,” whether it signifies that the spiritual is to take 
precedence over the mere bodily necessities or refers to the simplicity 
of the meal, the tendency is to exalt the severe and repressive. 

Again, in 11: 27-28 an interest which might be called ascetic appears. 
The natural feelings and emotions are given a subordinate position and 
the spiritual is emphasized. This is the repressive element which makes 
religious duties override family ties and affections. The paragraph 
12:13~-20 sets forth an appeal to Jesus to be an arbitrator in the matter 
of an “inheritance.” The stern refusal to deal with such matters, 
combined with the statement that a man’s life consisteth not in the 
things which he possesseth, and with the parable of the Rich Fool, 
manifests a strong tendency against the accumulation of wealth and the 
indulgence which it brings and at the same time serves to exalt simplicity 
and sincerity of life. In agreement with this is the exhortation to avoid 
the chief seats at feasts and public places, with the corresponding com- 
mendation of humility, and the accompanying promise that true humility 
and freedom from self-seeking will gain the reward of honor and esteem, 
while ostentation and self-aggrandizement can meet no other end than 
confusion and humiliation. 

It may be argued that these are tenuous threads from which to weave 
the fabric of an ascetic interest. It is granted that they are somewhat 
fragile, but not overmuch so. Is it not true that in the atmosphere of 
the early Christian community, with its vagueness and need of adjust- 
ment, the emphasis on asceticism could not be laid too strongly for fear 
of injuring an undeveloped faith? It would seem to be the part of good 
leadership not to urge it to the point of repulsion. The extravagant 
exaltation of this tendency in later times to the extent of indifference 
to the body and the glorification of martyrdom, as seen in the Epistles 
of Ignatius and the Martyrdom of Polycarp, would probably have 
strongly repelled the halting novices in the faith and defeated the aims 
of the interest. 

557 


40 HISTORICAL AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES 


Did a situation exist in the early church in which such an interest 
would play a part? We may note the experiment of that organization 
as recorded in Acts 2:43-45. The possession of great wealth was 
evidently not encouraged in the community." Again, there can be little 
doubt that James, the brother of Jesus, early became a commanding 
and influential personage in the Jerusalem church.? His relationship 
to Jesus would naturally give him special claims to distinction and his 
dicta would have corresponding influence and weight. His Jewish strict- 
ness and rigidity on the ascetic side are shown in his attitude on the 
matter of clean and unclean, as well as in the interference of his mes- 
sengers at Antioch.4 This, of course, proves no more than that James 
was a strict, unyielding Jew in these respects, but the elements which 
make for asceticism are there. However, in addition to this we have 
the statement of Hegesippus in the fifth book of his Commentaries, 
quoted by Eusebius: 

But James, the brother of the Lord, who, as there are many of his name, 
was surnamed the Just by all, from the days of our Lord until now, received 
the government of the church with the apostles. This apostle was con- 
secrated from his mother’s womb. He drank neither wine nor fermented 
liquors, and abstained from animal food. A razor never came upon his head, 
he never anointed with oil, and never used a bath. He alone was allowed to 
enter the sanctuary. He never wore woolen, but linen garments. He was 
in the habit of entering the temple alone, and was often found upon his bended 
knees, and interceding for the forgiveness of the people, so that his knees 
became as hard as camels’ in consequence of his habitual supplication and 
kneeling before God. 


Exception may be taken to the historicity of this passage, and 
probably some of the details are fanciful and apocryphal. But after 
due allowance has been made for legendary accretion there probably 
remains a residuum which indicates that James was of an ascetic tempera- 
ment. It does not seem likely that such a statement arose with abso- 
lutely no foundation. This, coupled with what we know of the man 
from the New Testament, gives fair justification for ascribing a severe 
and repressive tendency to him. What is more likely than that this 
should appear in some of the traditions regarding Jesus and that these 
should be promulgated first in the Jerusalem community and made to 
meet any tendency to laxity and indulgence? 

t Acts 4:32-35. 

2 ACIS σοῦ, τὸ 22: oT, 8}: ἘΠ ΠΟ ΞΘ ΤΟΣ 

3 Acts 15:19-2ο. 4 Gal. 2:12. SHH aL age 

558 


SOME NON-MARKAN ELEMENTS IN LUKE 41 


VI. THE TEACHING ON EXORCISM 


We pass now to one of the most difficult phases of our subject and 
one of no little importance. This is the teaching of this section on 
exorcism. Its first appearance is in connection with the return of the 
Seventy.t The Seventy are represented as rejoicing because on their 
missionary tour their work of preaching had been accompanied by works 
of exorcism, ‘‘Lord, even the demons are subject to us in thy name.” 
The sentence can be understood only in the light of the prevailing world- 
view and the demonology of the time. This, however, will form a later 
part of our discussion. The striking thing about this passage is that, 
apart from a momentary flash of apparent gladness, there is no word 
of commendation from Jesus for this work. On the contrary, there is a 
very distinct rebuff to any tendency to give an important place to this 
species of activity. ‘‘ Nevertheless, in this rejoice not that the spirits 
are subject to you, but rejoice that your names are written in heaven.” 
Here the spiritual side of the work is clearly given prominence at the 
expense of the spectacular. 

The question of exorcism crops out for a moment in Luke 13:31-33, 
where Jesus makes reply to the Pharisees who warn him against Herod. 
The reply is an oracular one and is rather colorless in respect to our dis- 
cussion here. The other important place in the section where exorcism 
is discussed is in Luke 11:14~-26. Here we seem to have two conflicting 
phases of the subject, the latter of which we shall discuss first. The 
statement regarding the man who has been delivered from an unclean 
spirit and who suffers the return of the demon with seven others of a more 
vicious type is one which has caused no little difficulty to interpreters. 
The only legitimate inference is that a deliverance from such a spirit is 
followed by a domination many times worse. Then why continue the 
practice? It would seem inhuman so to do. The question raises itself 
whether this passage does not represent a circle which is interested in 
showing the inferiority of exorcism as a line of religious activity and its 
temporary character. If this is so, it is a stronger expression of the 
interest manifested in the somewhat gentle rebuke of Jesus to the 
Seventy. 

The verses which precede those which have just been discussed, 
namely, 11:14—23, offer some difficulty. It is the only definite case of 
exorcism in this whole section—in fact, in all the non-Markan material— 
and is on the whole unfavorable. The very fact that such activity could 
be connected with the name of Beelzebul shows that in some circles it 


t Luke 10:17-20. 
559 


42 HISTORICAL AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES 


did not enjoy high repute. But the argument of the passage is that it is 
by divine power that these deeds are accomplished, and that this acquisi- 
tion and exercise of power over the evil spirits is a foreshadowing of the 
kingdom of God, an earnest of the greater conquest to be. A stronger 
than “‘the prince of the power of the air”’ is working for the overthrow 
of evil. The implication of vs. 23 is that any opposition to this testimony 
is opposition to God through Jesus. It is quite possible that we have here 
a reply to those who denounced the practice from a circle which practiced 
exorcism and saw in it the promise and adumbration of the kingdom. 

Have we then in these passages indications that there were two circles 
among early Christians which held opposing views on this subject? Let 
us examine whatever facts may have a bearing on the matter. In 
reference to the practice of exorcism by the early Christians we note that 
in Acts 5:16 works of healing and exorcism on the part of the apostles are 
said to have attracted large numbers of people from the country around 
Jerusalem. The opposition of the Jewish leaders seems to be closely 
connected with this. We have no means of determining what the “great 
wonders and signs’? wrought by Stephen were,’ but it is probable that 
casting out evil spirits had its place among them. In the Samaritan 
mission under the leadership of Philip we are told that his “signs”? were 
exorcisms and that there were many of them. The story of Simon Magus 
gives an interesting side-light on the impression which such deeds made 
onasorcerer. In Acts 8:14 ff. the power to cast out demons is dependent 
on the reception of the Holy Spirit, which reception was accompanied 
by external manifestations. On the missionary tour of Paul and Barna- 
bas they wrought “‘signs and wonders”’ at Iconium, and unbelieving Jews 
stirred up opposition against them. We have also the specific case of 
Paul at Philippi.2 Thus there can be no doubt that exorcism was prac- 
ticed by Jewish Christians at a very early time, that it was performed 
under control of the Holy Spirit, and that it was exorcism in the name of 
Jesus.3 

What was the Jewish attitude toward exorcism? It appears to have 
been more or less a custom among the Jews. This is shown by the ad 
hominem argument of Jesus in Luke 11:19, ‘By whom do your sons cast 
them out?’ Unless there was a practice more or less prevalent the 
remark would have little point. Acts, chap. 19, is also of significance 
here. At Ephesus Paul came into contact with a number of itinerant 
exorcists of Jewish nationality. Evidently they made a profession of 

t Acts 6:8. 2 Acts 16:16 ff. 

3:5. Ὁ Acts "39: τ: 28: σῦς τ: ΕΠ ΚΘ ΤΟ: 17. 

560 


SOME NON-MARKAN ELEMENTS IN LUKE 43 


casting out demons. In the interbiblical literature the Book of Tobit 
presents a case in point, and it is an easy matter to trace both prophetic 
and legal hostility to all forms of magic.t The translation of Exod. 20:7 
might well run, ‘Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God for 
an evil purpose.” The evil use of the name of Yahweh which is here 
forbidden cannot possibly refer to its use in swearing, because the people 
are frequently exhorted to swear by his name.?__ Moreover, the use of the 
sacred name for any such purpose as blasphemous cursing would be the 
last thought for a Jew. It is far more likely that the prohibition is to 
prevent its use in incantations and spells which conjured the evil spirit 
to or from its abode. Two things then are clear: (1) that the practice of 
sorcery was in vogue among the Jewish people, for laws are not made in 
advance of need and prophets do not fulminate against purely imaginary 
evils; (2) that there were legal prohibitions of such practices. 

We must now recall that at the head of the church in Jerusalem stood 
a man who was a Jew of a rigid and strictly legal bent. To such a man 
the exorcisms which were performed would be a matter for doubt, if 
not a thing of abhorrence. That James had a strong following in the 
Jerusalem church is evidenced by the part it played later in the legalistic 
controversy. What is more probable than that in this circle there grew 
up an opposition to the practice of exorcising in the name of Jesus? 
To the members of this legalistic circle it was a transgression of a direct 
command and therefore not to be tolerated. Viewed from the stand- 
point of such a situation the passages on exorcism in our section become 
intelligible as they do on no other interpretation. Again we find our 
material giving indications of having emanated from the Christian com- 
munity at Jerusalem. 


VII. THE PRAYER ELEMENT 


The next interest which we discover in our material is one which 
might be considered so general that it would be impossible to discover 
a situation into which it would not fit, and, therefore, difficult to assign 
to any particular situation with any high degree of probability. The 
prayer element in this material emerges first in the eleventh chapter, 
where we have the shorter and less-known form of the Lord’s prayer. 
The introduction to this prayer is significant: ‘‘And it came to pass as 
he was praying in a certain place, that when he ceased, one of his disciples 

tIsa. 8:9; Jer. 27:9-10; Mal. 3:5; Exod. 20:7; Lev. 19:26, 31; 20:6; Deut. 
18:11. The passage in Deuteronomy forbids any commerce with magic and uses 
the broadest terms in this connection; cf. “abominations of the nations.” 


2 Cf. Deut. 10:20. 
561 


44 HISTORICAL AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES 


said unto him, Lord, teach us to pray, even as John also taught his dis- 
ciples.”’ This is very Jewish, and to feel the atmosphere one has but 
to recall the fact that the rabbis sometimes composed prayers for their 
pupils. This introduction is very different from that which meets us 
in the Gospel according to Matthew and raises the question as to the 
situation which may have caused it to be remembered or formulated. 
It would seem to represent a period in which Christianity had not formu- 
lated its prayers and was feeling the need of so doing. Gradually becom- 
ing conscious of its difference from Judaism, it would come to feel the 
inadequacy of the old prayers to meet the new spirit, and thus to lay em- 
phasis on such an element. There is yet another possible indication of 
the situation: “ Even as_John also taught his disciples.”” The persistence 
of the Johannine movement side by side with Christianity is a fact that 
cannot be gainsaid. The statement regarding Apollos' that he knew only 
the baptism of John is in point here, while the incident of Paul and the 
disciples at Ephesus? is highly significant. One of the manifest interests 
of the Fourth Gospel is to combat a persisting Johannine party. The 
placing of any phase of the Johannine movement in contrast to that of 
Jesus, as in these introductory verses, indicates a fairly close proximity 
of the two movements and some emulation. 

The continuation of the passage which contains the model prayer 
deals specifically with this interest. The evident intent of the verses is 
to encourage the disciples to continuance in prayer even in the face of 
disheartening obstacles. The basis of encouragement is the fact that 
they may rely on God to be at least as generous and willing as any human 
friend. The specific reference to the Holy Spirit as the supreme gift in 
answer to prayer is very primitive from the standpoint of Christian 
history. 

The second appearance of the prayer interest in our material is in 
Luke 18:1-14. There are two parts in the passage representing differ- 
ent phases of the matter: (1) the parable of the Indifferent Judge, or 
better, that of the Importunate Petitioner; (2) the parable of the Phari- 
see and the Publican. Regarding the first, the evident purpose of the 
story is to emphasize the necessity and value of persistent, courageous 


t Acts 18: 24 fi. 1. ΔῸΓΕ τὸ: τ ἢ. 

3 ΟἹ. E. F. Scott, The Fourth Gospel, pp. 77-86. As to the continued persistence 
of Johannine influence in the Sabaeans or Mandaeans found in the Tigris and Euphrates 
districts, cf. Lightfoot on Colossians, p. 402, and Hastings’ Dictionary of the Bible, 
II, 670. 

4 Luke 11:5-13. 

562 


SOME NON-MARKAN ELEMENTS IN LUKE 45 


prayer, not the unwillingness of God, for the apathy of the judge is but 
the background of the picture. The seventh verse seems to point to a 
situation of distress and oppression which calls for the intervention of 
God. The second phase represents an interest in the control of prayer- 
custom and habit, and is designed to prevent arrogance and to inculcate 
the spirit of humility born from a sense of unworthiness. 

As we have already stated, the prayer interest is so general that it 
will be a matter of difficulty to discover indications of special situations 
which are served by these passages. But we may recall the pre-eminent 
position which prayer occupied in the early Christian community. The 
prayer in the upper chamber,’ attendance at the temple at the hour of 
prayer,’ the prayer of the community in special situations,’ the attitude 
and practice of the apostles and leaders,‘ and of the laymen’ demonstrate 
this with clearness. It was by prayer that the Holy Spirit and its accom- 
panying powers came. This fact alone would be sufficient to show that 
prayer occupied a place of great prominence. It may be asked: “If 
this is so, and on the hypothesis that this section represents the needs of 
the early Christian community, how it is that it does not occupy a larger 
place in it?’’ The probable explanation is simple. Prayer was and 
is one of the most spontaneous expressions of religious life and experi- 
ence and would not suffer too great a control. One would be justified 
in expecting that any instruction or guidance in the matter would 
be general and the touches light. The model prayer of 11:2 ff. would 
serve to turn the minds of the worshipers to sane and practical subjects, 
a control so urgent and necessary in a primitive movement, and thus to 
prevent wild and uncontrolled and dissipated exercise of the activity. 
Persistence in prayer, especially in the face of apparent failure and hostile 
forces, would be a subject most apposite; while, on the other hand, per- 
sistence in prayer, especially if successful, would easily produce an 
incipient religious arrogance which the parable of the Pharisee and the 
Publican would admirably meet. It seems very probable that the need 
for prayer-control would arise very early in an ecstatic religious com- 
munity, such as the Jerusalem church was. While the prayer interest of 
this section cannot be definitely attached to this circle, we can say that it 
is Palestinian Jewish,° and that as far as there are indications of time and 
place they favor Jerusalem and its Christian community as the place 
where these traditions took form. 


t Acts 1:13-14, 24. AACS G4 8: τον 0240.) το 25,2; ὑπ τὸ: 
a Acts 3:1. 5 Acts 10:2, 30. 
SPNCESIA 235 1225. 6 Cf. ‘Went up to the temple to pray.” 


563 


40 HISTORICAL AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES 


VIII. THE MIRACLE ELEMENT 


We consider now the bearing of the treatment of miracle which 
appears in this section as evidence for the date and place of the material. 
The first fact we meet, and it is one of great importance, is that there is 
but a modicum of the miraculous in the material before us. In 10:3 there 
is a reference to mighty works which had been done in Chorazin and 
Bethsaida without any further specification, while none are noted as 
having been performed in Capernaum, the Galilean headquarters of Jesus. 
The Seventy are represented as having power to cast out evil spirits. 
The third reference is in 11:14 ff., where the dumb demon is exorcised. 
But there is here a distinct impression that the thing done was not a 
marvelous work. By some the deed is ascribed to co-operation with the 
prince of demons, while others repudiate it as unworthy of consideration, 
and request a sign that shall be unmistakably such and bear the stamp of 
heavenly supernatural power. The miraculous is not by any means 
here exalted to a place of eminence. Three miracles of healing complete 
the list: (1) the healing of the woman with a spirit of infirmity3 (13: 10- 
17); (2) the healing of the dropsical man (14:2); (3) the healing of the 
ten lepers (17: 11-109). 

The very modest place which miracle occupies in this section as com- 
pared with Mark is striking. In Mark 1—9:29 (the rest of Mark’s 
Gospel is occupied with the journey to Jerusalem and the Passion), 
that is, during the Galilean activity of Jesus, there are three specific 
cases of exorcism‘ and five general statements of miracle-working activitys 
in which the impression is given that a large number of miraculous acts 
were performed, and that they consisted of healings in general and of 
exorcisms. One of these statements has reference to the activity of the 
disciples, and it is very significant that, while no limitation is placed on 
their power to exorcise, their healing activities are dependent on the use 
of medicinal agents. The Master, however, speaks but the word. 
Besides this there are eight specific cases of healing miracles by Jesus.7 
In addition to these there is one case of raising the dead® and four nature 
miracles: the calming of the storm;? the feeding of the five thousand; 


ΤΟΣ ΤΣ 2 Viss. 15,10. 
3 Note the indefiniteness of the expression πνεῦμα ἀσθενείας. 
42g fies) δ: cata 7 25. 
51:32, 39; 3:10ff.; 6:13 ff. (disciples); 6:53-56. 
σός τ. TIO, 433 223 thes BaD συ; 1 Π (G2 22; Ὁ τ Ὁ 
5:21 ff. 94:35 ff.  6:33-44- 
564 


SOME NON-MARKAN ELEMENTS IN LUKE 47 


the walking on the water;! and the feeding of the four thousand.?, How 
great a weight of the miraculous is here as compared with our Lukan ma- 
terial is very evident. Not only is the miraculous much greater in 
quantity, but it is heightened in intensity. In Luke the miracles are 
healings and exorcisms and, with the exception of the healing of the lepers, 
the cases are left as indefinite as may be. In Mark we have the raising 
of the dead and the nature miracles. It requires no argument to demon- 
strate the difference of atmosphere. It may be said that this section is 
essentially a discourse section and, as such, would not include miracles. 
It is true that the section is predominantly discourse-material and in so 
far the objection has force. It is, however, not exclusively so and the 
predominance has not operated to the exclusion of miracles, as the pres- 
ence of a few shows. 

Passing to the Fourth Gospel we find seven specific miracles: the 
turning of water into wine at Cana (2:1~-11), the healing of the noble- 
man’s son (4:46-54), the healing of the man at Bethesda (5:1-9), the 
feeding of the multitude (6:1-14), the walking on the water (6:16-21), 
the restoration of sight to the man blind from his birth (9: 1-12), and the 
raising of Lazarus (11:1-45). Besides these we have definite state- 
ments of groups of miracles performed by Jesus. “Now when he was at 
Jerusalem at the passover, during the feast, many believed on him there, 
beholding the signs which he did.”3 ‘‘The Galileans received him having 
seen all the things which he did at Jerusalem at the feast.’4 ‘And a 
great multitude followed him because they beheld the signs which he did 
on them that were sick.”’s ‘His brethren said to him, Depart hence, 
and go into Judea that thy disciples also may behold thy works which 
thou doest.’° “But though he had done so many signs before them yet 
they believed not on him.’ Although there are fewer specific miracles 
than in Mark, the character is similar to those mentioned there, and in 
some cases it is heightened. The impression is also distinctly conveyed 
that the exercise of this miraculous power was a very common thing with 
Jesus and that we have but a few of his deeds recorded. It is to be 
noticed that the miracle of exorcism has entirely disappeared. Another 
point in this general review is that in the Lukan section we are discussing 
there is only one mention of faith in connection with the miraculous and 
that is after the miracle has been performed and brings an added blessing.® 
In Mark, however, faith is the prerequisite of the blessing which comes 
through this supernatural power, while in the Fourth Gospel the process 

HOsA5—52: 312203 56:2. 7 12:3: 

Φ δ: ft. 44:4-5. Gir 3s 8 Luke 17:19. 

565 


48 HISTORICAL AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES 


is reversed and the miracles become signs (σημεῖα) which call forth faith 
in the one who performs them. 

Let us now examine these data for their interpretation. Entirely 
apart from the question of historicity, we find a progress in the matter of 
the number of miracles. Between this Lukan material and Mark and the 
Fourth Gospel there is a great disparity in this respect. In the character 
of the miracles there is also a progress, there being no nature miracles 
in the Lukan section, while in the rest of the material they appear. 
There is but one specific case of exorcism in Luke and that not highly 
favorable, while this type is predominant in Mark and wholly disappears 
in the Fourth Gospel. Faith has no intimate connection with the mir- 
acles in Luke, it is their prerequisite in Mark, and their result in the 
Fourth Gospel. In Mark, Jesus is the constant doer of “mighty 
works,” which are the outflow of his saving power and are cosmic in sig- 
nificance. In the Fourth Gospel they are ‘“‘signs’”’ and are evidences of 
his person. It is suggested that these data indicate a chronological 
development and place this material earlier than Mark. [5 this develop- 
ment synchronous with the christological development of the period ?% 
Is it possible that at the beginning the element of miracle was either 
ignored or emphasized but little, and that it was only as christologi- 
cal thought became more distinctly formulated and heightened that 
this element came into prominence? Moreover, the opposition of 
orthodox Jews to anything that savored of commerce with evil spirits 
would tend to minimize the emphasis on exorcism. Apart from Mark it 
does not appear in any large way. Does its disappearance in the Fourth 
Gospel indicate that such deeds did not comport as well with the high 
thought of the Christ as did the other miraculous acts? If the sons of 
the Pharisees and vagabond Jews did such things they would have little 
evidential value for Jesus. The Markan representation comes from a 
circle which laid emphasis on these manifestations of power. But while 
explaining the silence of the Fourth Gospel on the ground of christological 
propriety, we cannot do so in the case of our material. It is much more 
probable that an early date is one factor in the minimizing of the miracu- 
lous when the future appearance of Jesus as Messiah well-nigh filled the 
whole horizon of Christian thought. A later silence would be harder 
to explain.2 Another factor, already suggested, might be found in Jew- 
ish suspicion if this material is of Jerusalem origin, for we have already 


τ Cf. the discussion of the christological interest, pp. 49 ff. 


2 Cf. Acts, chap. 3, for such a miracle-free representation of Jesus, and Acts, chap. 
2, which some think a later phase of thought. 


566 


SOME NON-MARKAN ELEMENTS IN LUKE 49 


seen that there was probably at Jerusalem a circle which looked askance 
atexorcism. Thus we reach the hypothesis that the status of the miracle 
element in this section indicates an early period when the thought of 
the Christians was centered on other matters and that such a represen- 
tation comes from Palestinian soil, presumably Jerusalem.* 


IX. THE STAGE OF CHRISTOLOGICAL DEVELOPMENT AS INDICATIVE OF 
TIME AND PLACE 


Attention must be given to the following allusions to, or statements 
regarding, the prophetic and teaching function of Jesus. In 10:1 he 
is represented as about to follow in the steps of his preaching disciples. 
Although his purpose in so doing is not stated, it is a fair inference that 
he wished to supplement their message. In 10:25 he is addressed 
as “Teacher” by one of those learned in the law. The “good part” 
which Mary chose was receiving the instruction of Jesus.2, The passage 
11:29 ff., where Jesus refuses to give a sign to those asking save the sign 
of Jonah, places the emphasis on the prophetic message. The way in 
which Jonah became a sign to the Ninevites was by his preaching,3 and 
“as Jonah became a sign to the people of Nineveh so shall the Son of Man 
be to this generation. .... The men of Nineveh . . . . repented at 
the preaching of Jonah and, behold, a greater than Jonah is here.”’ 
Thus the sign to that generation was the great message of Jesus. Again, 
the lawyers address him as “Teacher” in 11:45, and the same title 
is applied to him in 12:13. His teaching labors are mentioned in 13: 10,% 
22. He is represented in 13:33 as distinctly aligning himself with the 
prophets. ‘Nevertheless, I must go on my way to-day and to-morrow, 
and the day following, for it cannot be that a prophet perish out of 
Jerusalem.” It is quite true that this representation of the preaching- 
teaching function of Jesus is seen in other material than this, but it 
receives prominence here. Regarding its appearance in other material 
it must be granted that emphases remain in vestiges, sometimes fre- 
quent vestiges, after a new phase has become the ruling one. 

t Note the refusal of Jesus to give a sign, Luke 11:29 ff. A most significant 
change in this tradition appears in the parallel in Matthew, 12:38 ff., where the empha- 
sis is placed, not on the preaching of Jonah, but on his adventure with the great fish. 
It should be noted that Luke 11:20 makes Jesus say that the finger (power) of God is 
the agency in exorcism, not Jesus himself by a word, asin Mark. This Lukan repre- 
sentation is in very close alignment with the representation of Acts 2:22. 

? 10:30, 42. 

3 The Matthean parallel has an entirely different thought. 

567 


50 HISTORICAL AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES 


We turn now to other christological representations. The title 
“‘Son of Man” appears in 9:58, but this has no reference other than to 
the loneliness of Jesus. In 11:30 the title refers to Jesus in his teaching- 
preaching ministry. If the term as it appears in 12:8~r10 is apocalyptic, 
it is only very moderately so. The eschatological passage 12:35-40 
represents the Son of Man as coming. He was not so represented in 
12:8-1o. It is not, however, the vivid and pictorial eschatology of Mark; 
it is rather a reserved and indefinite type. A difficult and heterogeneous 
passage meets us in 17:20-37. Vss. 20-21 seem to be definitely anti- 
apocalyptic. In the following verses we have a mixture of the apoca- 
lyptic and the ethical,t but when we compare this with Mark we find that 
the connection of Jesus (the Son of Man) with the apocalyptic program 
is much vaguer than in the Second Gospel. There it is “for my name’s 
sake,” etc. Thus while the apocalyptic eschatology and Christology 
appear in this section, the quantity is not great and is very vague in 
type. The title 6 κύριος also appears. 

The striking christological passage in this section is 10:21-23, in 
which Jesus, as the text now stands, claims a unique relationship to the 
Father, a unigue knowledge of him, and a unique power to reveal him, 
which power rests on his own faculty of choice. The discussion of these 
verses by Harnack in an excursus'in The Sayings of Jesus? is excellent 
and does much to render intelligible a passage difficult both textually 
and as to thought-content. As to the Christology, all we need to note 
here is that the reconstructed passage gives us not a metaphysical rela- 
tionship of the Father to Jesus, but an ethical one. In the intimacy of 
this relationship Jesus has gained a great insight into the character of 
God and is thus enabled to show him to those with whom he cofmes in 
contact as no other can. The nature of Jesus is not here a matter of 
consideration, it is his function and task. 

What we have of christological representation in this section does 
not indicate by any means a high development of thought on the matter. 
The prophetic preaching phase receives considerable attention, the 
apocalyptic and messianic side of the question is much less vigorous than 
in Mark, the title “the Lord”’ is somewhat in evidence, and the restored 
form of the famous passage of this section loses its highly developed 
Christology under the demands of textual criticism. 

We now proceed to sketch the various phases of christological think- 
ing in order to find a time and a place into which the phenomena which 
appear in our material will fit. It must be said at the outset that the 

ἀν Θέ τυ 2. 2 Harnack, The Sayings of Jesus, pp. 272-310. 

568 


SOME NON-MARKAN ELEMENTS IN LUKE 51 


different phases were probably not sharply distinguished either chrono- 
logically or as to area. The scantiness of our sources in some 
quarters renders the task a delicate one, but a general outline may be 
obtained. 

For the early Christians the supreme evidence of the uniqueness of 
Jesus was the resurrection. It was the ground of their messianic faith, 
and, if to their Jewish minds the essentials of the messianic task had not 
been performed by Jesus in his earthly life, they had but to wait for his 
return on the clouds to see them accomplished. He is “the Christ who 
hath been appointed for you; Jesus, whom the heavens must receive 
until the time of restoration of all things.”’ There was a phase of 
thought which considered that it was first by his resurrection that Jesus 
became Messiah. The climax of Peter’s Pentecostal sermon? is in 
the light of the preceding context best interpreted in this way. The 
term used is a strong one (ἐποίησεν). Whatever Paul may have thought 
of the pre-existence and position of Jesus he certainly considers that by 
the resurrection Jesus was placed in possession of a more potent messiah- 
ship than had been his hitherto. On a fair interpretation of Rom. 1:3-4 
this conclusion is necessary. ' In the very nature of the case this adoption- 
ist idea could not long hold its ground. The future work of the Messiah 
must be connected with his earthly life. In proportion to the dimming 
of the hope of his immediate coming was the increase of the demand that 
his saving ministry appear in the past. Moreover, it is quite possible 
that unbelieving Jews might ask questions and make statements regard- 
ing the earthly career of Jesus that would cause no little perplexity and 
difficulty, and create a need for explanation of the events to which these 
statements related. That this happened in the case of his death seems 
very evident from our sources. In the linking of the earthly career of 
Jesus with his official position and future work what were the lines along 
which the earthly Christians moved? It would seem that the great mes- 
sage of Jesus was early taken as evidence of his messianic dignity and 
work on earth. With the words of Deuteronomy, chap. 18, regarding 
the prophet like unto Moses whom Yahweh would raise up for his people 
as a basis and starting-point, the splendid ministry of preaching and 
prophetic utterance on the part of Jesus could easily be taken as mes- 
sianic attestation. In fact, this very word is quoted in Peter’s sermon 
as recorded in Acts 3:22, and is there applied to Jesus.3 Such traditions 

t Acts 3: 20-21. 2 Acts 2:36. 

3 It should be noted in passing that the Samaritans possessing only the Pentateuch 
would be confined to this representation of the one who was to come. 


569 


52 HISTORICAL AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES 


as the transfiguration would also be pointed out as evidences of a unique- 
ness on the part of Jesus while on earth. It is quite possible that such 
things as the promise' of a prophetic person to whose word obedience 
was to be rendered, and the exhortation in the transfiguration experience 
where Jesus is manifestly superior to Moses, served to meet a problem 
which early confronted the Christians by reason of a Jewish challenge 
on behalf of the supremacy of Moses. They would perform such a service 
excellently. This would appear to be the transition from the attestation 
of Jesus by God to a self-attestation. 

It cannot be doubted that the early leaders of the Christian com- 
munity soon found some exceedingly delicate and troublesome problems 
on their hands. No sooner was claim of messiahship made for Jesus than 
unbelieving Jews pointed out his ignominious death, his obscure lineage, 
and lowly origin. Ina way that cannot fail to command our admiration 
the Christians addressed themselves to their task. The death was 
explained on the ground that it was a foreseen matter foreshadowed 
by the prophets,” that it was in line with the purpose and plan of the 
omnipotent God,’ and that it was for the sins of men.4 The genealogies 
showed his kingly descent and answered the reproach of lowly origin, as 
well as brought him into line with the Davidic prince who was to rule. 
The supernatural conception explained the entry of this messianic being 
into the world. Thus Jesus is Messiah at least from his birth. These 
last features, however, were later in making their appearance, however 
long they may have been in existence. Between the interpretations of 
Jesus just considered is a representation which we find in Mark, where 
Jesus is set forth as the user of miraculous power which is employed to 
overthrow the kingdom of the evil one. As far as Mark alone is con- 
cerned the realization of messianic position and task comes to Jesus at 
the time of his baptism when the voice from the heavens declares, “Thou 
art my beloved Son, in thee I take pleasure.” The temptation story in 
Mark and the emphasis on mighty works set forth Jesus as the Messiah 
on earth who has conquered Satan and is plundering his domain. Thus 
the kingdom of righteousness—the messianic kingdom—has already 
begun to triumph over the dominion of darkness and evil.5 Early the 
primitive Christians found strong evidence of Jesus’ messiahship in the 
saving power which inhered in him and was manifested in miraculous 


t Deut. 18: 18-109. 2 Acts 3:18. 3 Acts 2:23. 4Cf. Paul, passim. 


5It is interesting to note in this connection the covert note of surprise in the 
voice of Jesus, “1 was beholding Satan fall as lightning from heaven,” Luke 10:18. 
This seems earlier than Mark. 


570 


SOME NON-MARKAN ELEMENTS IN LUKE 53 


display. This is another self-attestation of Jesus. When we reach the 
Fourth Gospel the question has passed beyond controversy—Jesus is the 
pre-existent divine Logos. 

Ii we have approximated to fact in this meager sketch of the various 
phases of thought about Jesus as reflected in our sources, it will not be a 
difficult task to assign our material to its place and date on the basis of 
its christological ideas. Two phases appear in the main: (1) that in 
which the teaching ministry of Jesus predominates, and (2) an eschato- 
logical representation quite modified in tone. Both these phases prob- 
ably existed side by side in early Christian thinking. The heralding of 
Jesus as the Messiah to come could not fail to draw around his person and 
its interpretation some of the imagery and fancy of apocalypticism. 
That this was done has been placed beyond question by the Christian 
Apocalypse which closes the Canon. The presence of this phenomenon 
in a modified form in our material argues one of two things: (1) either 
it has come from a circle which did not approve the type of thought, or 
(2) it comes from a time when the process was incipient. The possibility 
of the prophetic side of the interpretation having arisen to meet Jewish 
taunts as to Jesus’ inferiority to Moses has been suggested above. These 
taunts would almost surely arise when Christians began to evangelize 
the Jews. Both the phases which appear in this section are Jewish and 
can hardly have originated on other than Jewish soil. Where would 
such thinking and interpretation take its rise? There is every proba- 
bility that the early Christian interpretation of Jesus was wrought out 
by those who had been closest to him in his earthly career. It was to 
them the community turned as the fountains of knowledge concerning 
the church’s Lord. These men for long years had their quarters at 
Jerusalem and from that point dominated the situation. It is quite in 
accord with this that we find both the phases under consideration 
set forth in the addresses of Peter in Acts, chaps. 2 and 3. While it is 
true that the apocalyptic interpretation was not by any means confined to 
Jewish centers,’ yet it was Jewish in origin, character, and development, 
and when probabilities are weighed the likelihood of Jerusalem as its 
center must be conceded. As for the prophetic aspect, it is distinctly 
Jewish, and, both from the standpoint of origin and from that of probable 
purpose, belongs to Jerusalem, performing its service there in the years 

τ It would be instructive to follow the exaltation of Jesus through patristic litera- 
ture to the declaration of the Council of Nicea, but that does not belong to this dis- 
cusslon. 

2 Cf. the Epistles to the Corinthians and the Thessalonians. 

571 


54 HISTORICAL AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES 


when the Jewish Christians were pressing the claims of their Lord on their. 
fellow-Jews and meeting their incredulity. 


X. THE PROGRESS OF CHRISTIANITY AS INDICATING THE DATE AND 
PROVENANCE OF THIS MATERIAL 


In the well-known passage Luke 10: 21-24 we have a reflection of the 
progress which missionary Christianity had made and was making: 
“T thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that thou didst hide 
these things from the wise and understanding and didst reveal them unto 
babes.”’ It is very evident here that the message of early Christianity 
had made little appeal and had produced little effect on the intellectual 
and cultured classes. That this was the condition of affairs in Jerusalem 
seems to be made abundantly clear by the attitude of the aristocratic 
Sadducees and high-priestly class.t This, too, in spite of the statement 
that a great company of the priests were obedient to the faith. The 
cases of the Ethiopian eunuch and the centurion, Cornelius, offer no 
serious difficulty. The Pharisaic sneer of John 7:48 is possibly a tra- 
dition from this earlier time, ‘Hath any of the rulers believed on him 
or any of the Pharisees?”? That Paul met the same situation and felt 
the necessity of dealing with it is clear from I Cor. 1:20 ff. There we 
find that both on Jewish and on Greek soil the response to the Christian 
appeal has been on the part of the unlettered and unlearned. In that 
case and in the one before us in the Lukan material the explanation is 
the same. It is part of the purpose of God; he has called and he has 
revealed. But‘we notice that Paul dealt with the question very soon 
after the problem arose among the Corinthians, and it is but natural to 
think that the same insistence for an explanation on the part of Jews is 
met in the section before us. It fits the Jerusalem situation passing 
well, for that church gives little evidence of possessing leaders or mem- 
bers of the intellectual or cultured type. It is rather strange that the 
Jerusalem church produced so few men in the course of its history who 
were at all eminent. As to its poverty and need, the distribution to 
the widows, the experiment with communism, the request of the council 
that the poor should be remembered,} and the zealous activity of Paul in 
his collection for the poor of the mother-church4 leave no room for 
questioning. Thus this part of our material would fit the situation in 
Jerusalem and probably in Palestine in all its missionary activities. 


Cf. Acts 4:1, 5, 13, “unlearned and ignorant”; 5:17, 24; 7:1. 

2 Acts 6:7. 3 Gal. 2:10. 

41 Cor. 16:1 ff.; II Cor., chaps. 8, 9; Rom. 15:25-26; Acts 24:17. 
572 


SOME NON-MARKAN ELEMENTS IN LUKE δῦ 


Again, 10:22 ff. seems to reflect a time when considerable work had 
been done along missionary lines, but when the results appeared rather 
meager to those who were laboring. Some passages in Acts‘ indicate 
a marvelous success for the movement from the beginning. But there 
‘is strong evidence that the Jews as such steadily refused to give allegiance 
to the teachings of what was to them an impious sect. It was one of the 
heaviest burdens which weighed down the heart of Paul that his nation 
had rejected the Christ and his salvation. It is with no imaginary prob- 
lem that the apostle is wrestling in Rom., chaps. 9-11; the crushing truth 
is that the results of the Christian mission among the Jews have been 
disappointing to a degree. In a similar strain is the lament of the 
apostle in II Cor. 3:13-16. We have already seen that certain parts 
of this Lukan material strongly reflect the rejection of the gospel by 
the Jews. Paul has two solutions: (1) ‘‘Their minds were hardened”’; 
(2) the Gentiles profit by the rejection of the Jews, which is but tempo- 
rary. Here in Luke there is the simpler and less reasoned explanation 
that this lack of success is due to the providential control of God. Reve- 
lation of the truth comes only by the Father and the Son; the disciples 
are relieved of responsibility when they have faithfully done their part. 
The early Christian missionaries, in the first blush of their great religious 
experience, their new belief, and in the face of their inspiring task, could 
not fail to expect their efforts to be attended with sweeping success. 
To them their message was the greatest thing in life, in their enthusiasm 
they could but think that it must compel acceptance with all who heard 
it. But we know the results fell far below such expectations. Did they 
turn amid such circumstances to those from whom they had gone forth 
and to whom they had learned to look for counsel, the apostles, and from 
them receive this word of the Master to be the answer to their doubts and 
their encouragement to future efforts? What more probable function 
could it exercise ? 


XI. OTHER INDICATIONS AS TO TIME AND PLACE 


In the following paragraphs we gather together a few scattered 
statements which are better treated in this way than by assigning a 
separate heading to each. The passage in Luke 13:31-35 contains 
two such. We consider first 13:31-33, in which the Pharisees are 
represented as advising Jesus to leave the territory ruled over by Herod 
and seek safety elsewhere, because Herod had designs on his life. It is 
a curious bit of tradition, (1) because of its fugitive reference to Herod, 

ἘΠ Ρ Ρ ΠΤ, Ay AA ΤῊ ΞΕΤΑ; 6:7: 

573 


56 HISTORICAL AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES 


(2) because of the very strange representation of the Pharisees as giving 
friendly counsel to one whom they are otherwise declared to hate and 
whose life they desire, and (3) because of the vague, indefinite, oracular 
response of Jesus, dimly suggesting a consciousness that all his course 
was pre-arranged and determined. It is a weak form of the Johannine 
‘“‘Mine hour is not. yet come.” It seems to be an isolated scrap of tra- 
dition connected here with the following context by the reference to 
Jerusalem. One cannot avoid wondering how it came to be preserved, 
especially when it distinctly opposes the hostile representation of the 
Pharisees. Nor is the statement regarding Herod such as friends of 
Jesus would care to remember on his lips. Is there an interest which 
would account for the preservation and use of such a passage? ‘The 
references to Herod and his followers are sufficiently rare to raise a 
suspicion that in the mention of these may be found a hint of the 
solution. In Acts 12:1 ff. we have the statement that Herod the king 
was persecuting the church, and had gone so far as to kill the apostle 
James. ‘Then to please the Jews (a fine touch regarding the Herods) he 
arrested Peter. At such a time when Herod was vexatious to the church 
the Christians would be interested in remembering any tradition which 
reflected discredit on the Idumean house, and which would at the same 
time show that they were but suffering a continuance of the treatment 
which had been given their Lord. While to our modern way of thinking 
this might seem puerile, it would have real significance and perform a 
function of value in a Jerusalem situation. The question also obtrudes 
itself: If this were Herod Antipas, as it must be in any reference to Jesus, 
what jurisdiction would he have over Jesus in the neighborhood of 
Jerusalem? At that time the district of Judea was under direct Roman 
rule and Jesus had long since left the territory over which Antipas held 
sway.’ But it is significant that at the time of the incidents recorded 
in Acts, chap. 12, Herod Agrippa I was on the throne over the land 
of Judea. This was the only time a Herod held sway over Judea after 
6 A.D. Thus several suggestive lines point to the time when Herod 
Agrippa was vexing the church in Jerusalem, and the dates of his rule 
are 41-44 A.D. 

Following these verses are two? which represent Jesus as lamenting 
over the city of Jerusalem, bewailing her treatment of those who tried 
to instruct her, protesting that she herself had rejected all the advances 
of her Lord, and solemnly declaring that she is abandoned until she shall 
have acknowledged Jesus as the Sent of Yahweh. When we recall the 

MOST seis 22. Ξ 15.5.57. 35: 

574 


SOME NON-MARKAN ELEMENTS IN LUKE 57 


fact that Jerusalem was the scene of the early Christian activity, the 
birthplace of the church, the headquarters of missionary endeavor for 
many years, that she remained the center to which the eyes of Jewish and 
many Greek Christians turned with something akin to reverence for 
many years more, the preservation of such a tradition is passing strange. 
If it were in existence and in any way current during those early years 
it could not fail to give offense. It is in striking contrast to the pacifica- 
tory utterances of Peter in his addresses in Acts, chaps. 2 and 3, where 
he is made to say that the Jews put Jesus to death in ignorance and that 
they were merely the agents in the execution of the divine purpose. Are 
there any indications of date or situation in the verses ‘“‘ That killest the 
prophets and stonest them that are sent unto thee’? Is there any 
known situation which this fits so well as the death of James at the 
hand of Herod and the stoning of Stephen? It is a very apt description 
of two great tragedies which occurred during the early years in Jerusalem. 
“How often would I have gathered you... ., but ye would not! 
Behold, your house is left unto you desolate! . . . . Ye shall not see 
me until ye shall say, Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the 
Lord.’ 


τ The position has been advanced that the words in 13: 34-35 are a late tradition 
and arose at the time of the abandonment of Jerusalem by the Christians before its 
fall. I agree with Wellhausen (Das Evangelium Matthaei, p. 121) that ὁ οἶκος ὑμῶν 
does not refer to the temple. It should be noted that the thought of desolation is 
transferred from the ἔρημος of Matt. 23:38. In Luke it is a simple abandonment 
(ἀφίεται). Now if this refers to the abandonment of Jews by Christians as an object 
of missionary endeavor and is at the same time to be referred to about the year 70 A.D. 
it involves the persistence up to that time of a body of Christians in Jerusalem who were 
active in the work of propaganda among their compatriots. But whatever facts we 
have are against such an assumption. After the first dispersion the missionary activity 
of the Jerusalem church is very small. From the time when James supersedes the 
apostles in the leadership of the local church that church seems to have lived on terms 
of friendly toleration with the religious leaders of the Jews. Unless all our traditions 
regarding James (cf. Paul, Gal. 2:12; Eusebius, H.E., II, 23) are astray, a church under 
his control would not be likely to develop a situation so acute as that reflected in the 
sentences under discussion. The removal of the Christians to Pella can hardly be 
viewed in the light of a missionary abandonment. The personal interest was the 
deciding one in that case, Eusebius and Epiphanius to the contrary notwithstanding. 
Moreover, the assumption that later the city will acknowledge the Messiah is not 
in closest accord with the imminence of destruction which sent the Christians forth. 
It is more than doubtful if this section would have been connected with the stirring 
events of 67-70 A.D. had not Matthew brought it into immediate context with the 
predictions of the destruction of the city. If the Matthean connection be the original 
it is very hard to find a reason for the isolation of the tradition as it stands in Luke if it 
is there to be placed in the same historical situation. In themselves the Lukan verses 


575 


58 HISTORICAL AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES 


But the stubborn fact is that for many years after the death of Jesus 
the efforts of his followers were focused on a city which is here declared to 
be abandoned. Is it not very probable that this tradition was used to 
account for and to mark the abandonment of Jerusalem from the stand- 
point of evangelization, or perhaps the break from the purely Jewish 
mission? When was Jerusalem so abandoned? ‘The petty opposition 
of the Jewish leaders and the hostility which culminated against Stephen 
are set forth in the early chapters of Acts. After the death of Stephen 
there is the first separation from Jerusalem.t The gradual extension of 
the movement beyond the Jews is reflected in the cases of Philip and the 
eunuch, Peter and Simon the tanner, Peter and Cornelius, and the first 
definite work among the Greeks.?, We find in following the record that 
this break with the Jewish mission, which was the culmination of a 
process, took place about the same time as Herod’s persecution. ‘This 
was, as we know, during the years 41-44 A.D. and may very well be the 
time when our verses found a use. In this connection we must note, 
whatever our opinion of its trustworthiness, the tradition that a word of 
the Lord was given the apostles to remain in Jerusalem for twelve years 
and then go into the world. The form of the statement varies, but the 
period of twelve years remains fairly constant.3 The calculation of the 
year of Peter’s death depends on this tradition: 30+12+25=67. 
While the forms in which the tradition appears are doubtless apocryphal, 
yet there may be some foundation in fact for the number 12. On this 
calculation our verses would represent a Jerusalem situation about 42 A.D. 

This same problem of the abandonment of the Jews because of their 
rejection of the gospel seems to appear again in 13:6-9 in the parable 
of the Barren Fig Tree with the plea for another year’s grace. This 
would serve well as a protest against a premature acknowledgment of 
the failure of the Jews to receive the gospel and as a sorrowful admission 
on the part of the Christians of the justice of their final break with their 
compatriots. Another phase of the Jewish mission seems to appear 
in 13:22-30. The paucity of the results of their labors evidently troubled 
the Christians and the question is plainly put, ‘Are there few that be 


do not refer to a destruction of the city, but to an abandonment. The idea of destruc- 
tion has been transferred to this by reason of the Matthean juxtaposition of traditions 
referring to two different events. It seems very clear that these words in Luke are 
better taken as referring to the missionary abandonment of the city by the apostles. 


t Acts 8:2. 2 Acts 11:20 ἢ. 


3 The Preaching of Peter, ap. Clement, Sirom., VI, 5, 43; the Acta Petri cum 
Simone V, and Apollonius, ap. Eusebius, H.£., V, 18, 14. 
576 


SOME NON-MARKAN ELEMENTS IN LUKE 59 


saved?” The answer is a statement of the difficulty of entering the 
kingdom (which would explain the fewness) and of the need of urgency 
because of the imminence of the closing of the door. When it is too late 
and the Jews recognize the superiority of Jesus and his lordship they 
plead their special advantages—the Jewish idea of favoritism—but this 
will not avail. Instead of their admittance to the kingdom, those from 
north and south and east and west, that is, Gentiles, are to have the 
desired positions. They who were first in choice and opportunity will 
fail to attain, while those who were considered outcasts are to be the 
children of the kingdom. This seems to be an eminently apt tradition 
for the failure of the Jewish mission and the exhortation to urgent haste, 
as well as the statement that the ‘‘ wedding shall be furnished with guests” 
from those who were not “τὴν people.’’ While it is not possible to 
discriminate sharply, such a situation would probably obtain with some 
acuteness in the early part of the fifth decade of the first century. 

A further interest is that which lays emphasis on almsgiving. Here 
we are met by that somewhat difficult sixteenth chapter, which, apart 
from some material which appears to have little or no connection with 
the main theme of the chapter, is devoted to this subject. The strange 
parable of the Unjust Steward seems to have its point in vs. 9, the pre- 
ceding verses being its background and those which follow being in the 
nature of comment. ‘Make to yourselves friends of the mammon of 
unrighteousness;' that, when it shall fail, they may receive you into the 
eternal tabernacles.’”’ One immediately recalls the very close con- 
nection in a Jewish mind between almsgiving and righteousness. It is 
evidently an exhortation to the right use of money and would be ad- 
dressed to those who had possessions.?, The poverty of the Jerusalem 
church as well as the Jewish thought of almsgiving would make this a 
very important question and provide a real reason for the formulation 
and preservation of such a tradition as this. The section vss. 1-13 
manifests an evident purpose to urge almsgiving on those who were able 
to practice it and to show the superior value of the true riches which 
cannot be obtained if material wealth is not properly administered. 
Vss. 10-13 would also comfort the Christians who suffered the privations 
of poverty. Vss. 14-18 are heterogeneous and break the connection. 
It is possible that they came in from the margin before Luke got his 
source. Vs. 19 is the logical sequence of vs. 13 and demonstrates the 
inability to serve God and mammon as well as the folly of the man who 

τ Cf. our “filthy lucre.” 

2 Note the exhortation in chap. 11 to the Pharisees to give alms. 


577 


60 HISTORICAL AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES 


has not used his wealth on the basis of the exhortation of vs. 9. As 
far as vs. 25 the accompanying thought is that those who experience 
poverty and hardship now are to be encouraged by the glorious prospect 
of the future. While this has been a fairly constant Christian appeal 
through the centuries, the need for such instruction seems to have been 
very acute in the poverty-ridden Jerusalem community, and a situation 
into which this fits admirably is thus found. Vss. 26-31 are not logically 
connected with the general thought of the chapter. Again we find the 
troublesome question of the failure of the Jews to accept Jesus as Messiah 
coming to the front. Does this passage represent the church dealing with 
the skepticism of the Jews as to the resurrection? In the face of a 
Jewish taunt to produce the risen Christ, the answer is that a proper 
reading of the Law and the Prophets would enable them to under- 
stand and believe. Such a pronouncement from the father of the faith- 
ful could be used with telling force.* Again the situation of this appended 
fragment is Jewish and, with no little degree of probability, Jerusalem. 

We have now traversed this material, examining the interests served 
by it and noting the situations where such interests needed serving. 
The results have been uniform. Without a single exception the material 
betrays Palestinian characteristics, and is of a type fitted to serve in 
situations which are either known by historical statement to have existed 
there or which can be closely inferred from facts that have strong claims 
to be considered historical. But we can draw the limits still more 
closely. Some of the situations which are served by the material here 
gathered are more easily located in Jerusalem than in any other place. 
It is indisputable that Jerusalem was at once the headquarters of Judaism 
and of Christianity, the abiding-place of their leaders, the scene of their 
first conflicts, and the place where, beyond any other on Palestinian soil, 
the problems arising from the separation of the Christian movement 
from orthodox Judaism and the ensuing bitterness would first make 
themselves felt. Thus, while it is true that some of the interests which 
seem to be served by this material were not by any means confined to 
Jerusalem, that city was the place where they first needed serving, and 
the place where an effort would be made to meet the needs of the growing 
and expanding organization. The conclusion seems fair that the 
traditions contained in this section arose in Jerusalem to meet the ques- 
tions which confronted the Christian community there and to control its 
development. 

t In the Fourth Gospel the Jews refuse belief in the presence of one risen from the 
dead. 

578 


SOME NON-MARKAN ELEMENTS IN LUKE 61 


As to the date of its crystallization, we have seen that the mission 
interest is strongly reflected, the Samaritan mission is specifically treated, 
the question of Pharisaic persecution occupies a place of prominence, the 
problems concerning the discipleship which would arise very early are 
faced, and the rejection of the gospel by the Jews and their abandonment 
as material for evangelization, together with the closely related movement 
of the Gentile mission, appear. Moreover, the development of christo- 
logical thought, the progress of evangelization, the reflections on the 
Herodian family, and other matters give us a more or less defined period 
in which this material came into use and prominence. Such a period 
would extend from the martyrdom of Stephen to the acceptance of the 
Gentile mission—roughly speaking, from 35 A.D. to 50 or 55 A.D. 

If these conclusions as to place and time are correct we gain from 
them a suggestion as to the form of this material which Luke uses. The 
subjects treated in the material have been noted in the general discussion 
and it remains only to draw attention to the fact that invariably the 
questions which lie behind the various paragraphs are questions related 
to the instruction of the Christian community and the control of the 
individual and corporate life. The attempts at control are indirect in 
some cases, but that is entirely in keeping with the situation. ‘The one 
theological topic of importance, the question of Christology, had in that 
situation exceedingly practical aspects. There are few things more 
probable than that leaders who were bearing the “care of all the 
churches”’ should feel the need of a manual of ecclesiastical and religious 
instruction, such as the Old Testament could not afford. It is possible 
that this block of material, Luke 9:51—18:14, formed part or the whole 
of a primitive gospel document. The topics discussed are distinctly 
favorable to this hypothesis, while the character of the material, dis- 
course rather than narrative, tends strongly in the same direction. A 
study of our early Christian literature will place beyond dispute that for a 
considerable time the only authorities which at all approximated to co- 
ordination with the Old Testament were the words of Jesus and the 
declarations of the prophet. Later, much later, appeal was had to the 
incidents of his life. 

Regarding the formation of such a document only the probabilities 
of speculation are left us. It is possible that the method was in the 
main agglutinative. A Christian, or group of Christians, possessing a 
record of a tradition regarding Jesus would actually join it to others 
when such were obtained. Doubtless the transition from oral to written 
transmission was very gradual, perhaps spasmodic. Moreover, we are 

579 


62 HISTORICAL AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES 


quite familiar with the method of accretion from marginal interpolations. 
That this material was not deliberately arranged and ordered is sup- 
ported by the presence of abrupt turns, of breaks in logical connection, 
and passages evidently interpolated in an earlier combination. This, 
together with the presence of this material in its present form in the Third 
Gospel and the convergence of interests and situations upon one period 
and one place, is an argument in favor of considering this a document from 
the Jerusalem church. How far it had been reworked before it reached 
the hand of Luke one cannot say, and the possibility is by no means 
precluded that the author of the Third Gospel himself left his imprint 
upon it. But there are a few indications which point in the direction of 
a composite document, and they are such as to suggest that the material 
was in approximately its present form when Luke incorporated it. There 
are two startings for Jerusalem, one at the opening of the section 9:51, 
and the other in 13:22. Has all the time between 9:51 and 13:22 been 
spent in Samaria and Judea? If so, how shall we account for the strange 
reference to Herod in 13:31? A very strange geographical note appears 
in 17:11, where Jesus is represented as passing along the borders of 
Samaria and Galilee going to Jerusalem. It is incredible that this is due 
to the author of our gospel, but is quite comprehensible in a primitive 
agglutination of documents with the intent to preserve everything about 
Jesus for practical purposes. There are also two groups of Samaritan 
material: (1) 9:51-56 and 10:25-37; (2) 17:11-19. ‘The discussion of 
the question of discipleship appears in more than one place. Other 
interests might be traced in the same way and would give force to the 
suggestion that this material as it came into Luke’s hand was made up 
of at least two smaller documents representing similar interests, which 
documents had been earlier combined into one. The limits of these 
documents might be given as 9:51—13:21; 13:22—18:14. Within 
these, again, are suggestions of a composite character, which will not be 
traced here. But however and whenever this material assumed its 
present form, it goes back for its first literary formulation to the Chris- 
tian church at Jerusalem. If a suggestion were to be hazarded it would 
be that it took literary form when the exigencies of the missionary 
expansion of Christianity rendered it impossible for all or even the 
greater part of the adherents to receive the “spoken word” from the 
“eyewitnesses.” 


580 


Π. AN EXAMINATION OF THE NON-MARKAN MATERIAL 
CONTAINED IN LUKE, CHAPS. 3-8 


The material which forms the basis of our discussion in this section 
is found in Luke, chaps. 3-8, and includes the following: 3:7-20; 4:1-30; 
5:1-11; 6:20-49; 7:1—8:3. It will be observed that this material does 
not present itself in a compact form, as was the case with the previous 
section. It is interpolated in the Markan scheme in places which seemed 
fitting to the evangelist. There are a few coincidences with Mark even 
in the material we have called non-Markan, e.g., Mark 1: 7-8, Luke 3:16; 
Mark 1:12—13, Luke 4:1-2; Mark 1:14-15, Luke 4:14-15. The first 
of these is a word of the Baptist regarding the “mightier than I,” which 
might well have stood both in Mark and in the peculiar source, for the 
parallels are not accurate. The second is an introductory statement to 
the temptation and has sufficient variation at least to raise the question 
whether Luke is not here independent of Mark. The third coincidence 
is a mere transition from the scene of the temptation to Galilee. None 
of these figures at all seriously in the general problem. Regarding the 
rest of the material we note that Matthew has some of it almost verbatim, 
some with more or less divergence, while some is peculiarly Lukan. 

A study of this material gives the impression that two, if not three, 
interests lay back of its formulation and use by the early Christian com- 
munity. There are two types of material, one being narrative, the other 
discourse. To one who follows these sections uninterrupted by the 
Markan basis the difference in type is striking. Any statement as to 
the bearing of these types and interests on unity or plurality of sources 
will be postponed until the material has been subjected to an examination. 


I. THE SERMON ON THE PLAIN 


We shall consider first the discourse-material found in Luke 6: 20-49, 
known as the Sermon on the Plain. The relationship of this sermon to 
that which appears in the First Gospel will not be directly discussed. 
The question is a complicated and delicate one and would involve a 
greater attention to the literary problem than lies within our province. 
Reasoning a priori it may be regarded as a matter of great likelihood that 
this quintessence of the teaching of Jesus would assume more than one 
form and would be in somewhat general circulation. It is generally 
581] 63 


64 HISTORICAL AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES 


agreed that Matthew’s sermon as we now have it is composite, but we 
shall follow the question of relation no farther. We pass to notice some 
facts regarding the Lukan sermon and some interests which appear to 
be served by it. 

As the sermon stands before us in Luke it is manifestly and exclusively 
a discourse addressed to the community. It is true that in vs. 17 
mention is made of a “great multitude of disciples’”’ who are among “‘a 
great number of people” who ostensibly hear the sermon, but the address 
is to the disciples and is direct. It is the disciples who are “ye poor,” 
etc. In the early part of Matthew’s sermon the address is indirect and 
the blessings are pronounced on classes. In Matt. 5:11-12, where the 
approximation to Luke is close, the direct form of address is used. 
There is here, however, no suggestion that the blessings and statements 
have a wider application than to those who are of the inner circle. 
This points rather definitely in the direction of the early church when the 
kingdom was the peculiar possession of those who acknowledged Jesus 
as Messiah and confessed him—in other words, the disciples. 

The first section of the sermon, vss. 20-26, deals with the economic 
and social condition of the community in contrast to that of outside 
groups. “Blessed are ye poor”’ is a reference to economic poverty and 
physical privation. Οἱ πεινῶντες has a physical reference. The general 
sorrows and griefs of life arising from a variety of causes are covered by 
οἵ κλαίοντες. The twenty-second verse deals with the question of so- 
cial ostracism, which developed into contempt and calumny and which 
had its basis in religious differences. Over against these distressing 
conditions are set promises which are to be the basis of comfort and the 
inspiration to duty. To the πτωχοί, destitute economically in a broad 
sense, the kingdom of God is promised. Whatever may have been the 
thought of Jesus regarding the kingdom, however ethical and present it 
was in his teaching, it was a task of no little difficulty to strip the concept 
of the material and objective in the minds of Christians. While an inter- 
pretation of the phrase as indicating their present possession of a spiritual 
blessing which overcomes the disadvantages of πτωχεία may be possible, 
it seems much more probable that for the early church there remained 
in the concept of the kingdom many sensuous phases which were to be a 
future quid pro quo for present discomforts and privations. The supper 
in the kingdom, the high position of authority and esteem, would serve 
to extract the sting from present disability. One can easily understand 
an eschatological turn in 7 βασιλεία τοῦ θεοῦ. The promises which 
offset the hungering and mourning look in the same direction. It is 

582 


SOME NON-MARKAN ELEMENTS IN LUKE 65 


hard to avoid the feeling that the satisfaction of χορτασθήσεσθε is 
physical, and yeAdcere is not the ideal expression for a highly spiritual 
consolation. The bitterness of social isolation and the burden of 
slander was to be borne lightly in view of the fact that a great reward was 
set apart for them, ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ. But it was ἐν τῷ ovpavo that the 
Messiah was; from the heavens he was to come to receive them and 
they were to share his kingdom. So, then, the basis of comfort is parti- 
cipation in the kingdom, prosperity, happiness, and a reward awaiting 
in heaven.t A most unmistakably Jewish touch appears in vs. 230: 
“In the same manner did their fathers unto the prophets.” One can- 
not fail to recall at this point the statements of Luke 11:42 ff., where 
the fathers of the Pharisees and the lawyers are charged with killing the 
prophets. It is at once evident that this section represents an attempt 
to console the church in the face of Jewish hostility and oppression. 

Vss. 24-26 contain four woes directed against classes which are in 
straight contrast with the classes of the Christian community mentioned 
above. The wealth, the luxury, the gaiety, and the social prestige which 
the opponents of the early church enjoyed must have been a bitter 
experience and have constituted a serious problem for the church. Only 
in such a reversal of conditions as is here pictured could the righteousness 
of God and the value of the kingdom be maintained. That piety must 
bring prosperity and evil must be punished was the age-long cry of the 
Jew. By all the nation, save by a few of the 4lite, these rewards and 
punishments were thought of in terms of the material. The material 
thought died hard; in fact, it is not quite without life in modern times. 
The purely spiritual character of the religion of Jesus, the idea that “ vir- 
tue is its own reward,” were matters of exceedingly slow development. 
It is not to the discredit of the leaders and preachers of the early church 
that they appealed by means of the tangible and material. The ascetic 
element in the verses is in accord with an interest which was discovered 
in the material considered in the previous chapter. The reference to 
false prophets is essentially Jewish.? 

This first section of the sermon reflects the early Christian movement, 
which is poor, lowly, and persecuted. To offset the discouragement 
which pressed upon the community the promise of a future happiness 
already adumbrated is given. The teaching of these verses would meet 

tIt is scarcely necessary to point out how the crudeness and abruptness of these 
sentences have been softened by Matthew, but a comparison of the Matthean account 
with that of Luke will serve to emphasize the material and economic aspect. 

2 Cf. Jer., chap. 22; I Kings, chap. 22. 

583 


66 HISTORICAL AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES 


directly the pressing practical need which arose from such a situation, 
and would also serve as a call to fuller trust and devotion. The poverty 
and oppression which lie back of these words correspond admirably to 
what we know of the situation in Jerusalem. 

The following paragraph of the sermon, vss. 27-38, deals with the 
relation of the members of the community to outsiders. The sharp and 
bitter economical contrast indicated in the Beatitudes and Woes could 
not fail to tend in the direction of an attitude of harshness and an intense 
feeling between the two groups, the church and the outsider. Such a 
situation would require close attention and control. The predominant 
characteristic of the Christian is to be love and this is to determine his 
conduct toward his fellow-creatures. Their maledictions and ill treat- 
ment are to be met by the Christian virtues of benediction and inter- 
cession. Positive opposition to the church and physical injury are to be 
met by a calm non-resistance, and a spirit of generosity that is beyond 
expectation is to have free play. No wanton offense is to be given 
to outsiders, but by all lawful means Christians are to seek to heal the 
differences. Recognition of the fact that retaliation is the natural 
thing is implicit, but it would be neither right nor wise. Two motives 
are urged: a spiritual one and a practical one. The example of the Most 
High, whose sons they claim to be, should impel them in the right direc- 
tion. His mercies are toward the unthankful. Moreover, it is a wise 
policy so to conduct one’s self. Non-retaliation and generosity of spirit 
and treatment will go far to gain for them the desired leniency, and will 
do much toward disarming their opponents. The principle of vs. 380 
is of double application. 

This paragraph represents a phase of the disintegration of the old 
Jewish idea of favoritism. The process required much work as Chris- 
tianity expanded. It was the first great practical problem, and in many 
ways the hardest, which primitive Christianity had to solve, and the 
direction of its solution was to do much to determine the future of the 
new religion. The words of this section throw a fine light on the con- 
tinued influence of the profound ethicism of Jesus. 

The relation of the members of the community to each other is the 
subject of vss. 39-45. Attention should be called to the unsuitability of 
such an address to the disciples in the ostensible situation.‘ Up to this 


t It is quite possible that such an attitude may at some time have been assumed by 
the disciples. The request of the mother of James and John indicates this. But such 
could not well have been the case so early asthe sermon. Even if it were, is it probable 
that a tradition so uncomplimentary to the leaders of the movement would have been 
preserved unless it was of value in a specific situation ? 


584 


SOME NON-MARKAN ELEMENTS IN LUKE 67 


time there has been in the relation of Jesus and his disciples no evidence 
that any of them are assuming the position of leaders. In any case, that 
was the very purpose for which he had selected them. But the general 
attitude of the disciples has been hesitant and timid. In the early 
community, however, the self-preference of members would be a very 
probable phenomenon. Those who felt themselves to be in any way 
superior by position, training, or spiritual gifts would easily assume the 
position of leaders. Does this question represent a situation when com- 
parative novices are presuming to lead and to teach? Grave dangers 
would attend such a proceeding. The use of the word κατηρτισμένος 
indicates their present unequipped condition.’ 

It appears that some of the self-appointed leaders have, from their 
lofty spiritual height, criticized their brethren and looked at them with 
contemptuous disapproval. The stubborn fact, however, remains that 
those who have arrogated to themselves the right to sit in judgment 
are afflicted with more grievous faults than those whom they condemn. 
The teaching is very clear that the important matter is the ethical life, 
not the spectacular and the prominent. That such criticism and such an 
attitude have become manifest is a sufficient indication of the necessity 
for a change in the inner life, of which these things are but the expression. 

Thus it would appear that under the excellent ethical admonitions 
of these verses there lies an attempt to meet an exceedingly practical 
question of polity and conduct. In a new organization scarcely con- 
scious of itself, certainly with no clear apprehension of its full significance, 
with its various elements requiring care and adjustment, the regulation 
of impulsive and somewhat arrogant members would be a matter of no 
small importance. As to the place where such a need would be felt, it 
is admitted that it would arise in many places, but it is probable that the 
Jerusalem community early felt the pressure of the problem. There 
the regularly qualified leaders were present to exercise their authority 
and control. There also at the time of the disputations in the synagogue 
of the Libertines and the appointment of the deacons were those 
“full of the Holy Spirit and of good report’’ who were forging to the 
front. In fact, from the time when the gifts of the Holy Spirit began to 
be manifest there were present factors which could produce the situation 
which apparently lies behind the admonitions of these verses. Very 
early in the history of the movement such control as we have here would 
be needed. 

τ Cf. the problem regarding speaking with tongues and of spiritual gifts with which 
Paul had to deal, I Cor., chap. 12. 

585 


68 HISTORICAL AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES 


The sermon closes with a section, vss. 46-49, which emphasizes the 
supremacy of inner religion. The marks of a Christian in the early days 
were belief and confession. In the first dawn of the movement the fun- 
damental matter was belief in Jesus as the Messiah. Confession was to 
follow spontaneously. Later, however, under the stress of opposition, 
confession was emphasized as marking the true Christian. To “witness 
a good confession’? was “ἃ consummation devoutly to be wished.” 
When the attempt was made to compel allegiance to the empire by 
forcing a confession of the emperor as Lord, more than ever would the 
confession of Jesus be the mark of a Christian.? We shall not be far wrong 
in claiming that from an early time strong insistence was made upon an 
oral confession of Jesus as Lord. Under such circumstances the external 
act could easily incur the danger of being substituted to a greater or 
less degree for the inner experience. This paragraph makes an excellent 
corrective for the distorted idea that the naming of Jesus as κύριος 
has anything essential to do with vital Christianity. The essentials are 
rather the inner transformation of the life and its control by the prin- 
ciples of Jesus. 

The encroachments of externality are so general that it is impossible 
to state a definite situation out of which alone this corrective would grow. 
It is, however, scarcely credible that Jerusalem and its Christian com- 
munity so recently from Judaism and surrounded by strong Judaistic 
influences could escape this danger. 

It is not possible to read this discourse and fail to be impressed by its 
compact unity. It moves carefully, steadily, and logically from thought 
to thought and is complete in itself. Moreover, the literary style of the 
section is deserving of attention. The sermon is composed of sharp, 
pointed sayings, close, clear contrasts, and moves on steadily from state- 
ment to statement to a conclusion. There is balance of thought and 
expression which is in a measure different from anything else in the 
gospels. It is not the parallelism of the Hebrew style; rather it is a 
style affecting the Stoic diatribe. In some parts of the Pauline literature 
there is an approximation to it. 


t Luke 12:8; Rom. 10:9-10; Phil. 2:11; I John 4:15. 

2 The story of the martyrdom of Polycarp shows the tenacity of the idea; cf. The 
Martyrdom of Polycarp, ix, x. 

3 The influence of the literary forms of Hellenic philosophic culture on New Testa- 
ment thought and expression has been investigated only in very recent times. It is 
natural that the Pauline writings should be the first to come under scrutiny, but there 
is no guaranty that the other New Testament books have entirely escaped the pervasive 


586 


SOME NON-MARKAN ELEMENTS IN LUKE 69 


The completeness of the section and the somewhat distinctive 
literary form suggest that the author of the gospel took an existing 
source and incorporated it without serious alteration. The perfection 
of its literary form is evidence for its existence in written form, while the 
value of its practical suggestions contained in its paragraphs would be 
sufficient warrant for its preservation in this attractive way. Evidently 
in its present form we have here a sermon to early Christians. The 
Jewish touches give clear evidence of its Palestinian origin, while the 
influence of Stoic literary forms, if accepted, suggests a Hellenistic circle. 
Of all the Palestinian centers Jerusalem has the greatest claim to con- 
sideration, for reasons that are quite obvious.' The sermon appears to 
be the application of the ideas of Jesus to certain church situations which 
have to a greater or less degree controlled the emphasis. Its isolation 
in the Lukan Gospel, combined with its literary form and the character 
of its thought-content, strongly indicates a separate source. It came 
from a circle not far removed from that from which the Perean material 


emanated. 
II. THE REMAINDER OF THE MATERIAL 


We pass now to consider the rest of the peculiarly Lukan material 
contained in these chapters. The broken and scattered condition of 


influence of Hellenism. On the matter of the diatribe, cf. Rud. Bultmann, Der Stil der 
Paulinischen Predigt und die kynisch-stoische Diatribe; P. Wendland, Die hellenistisch- 
rémische Kultur, pp. 39 ff.; Die Literaturformen. 


* The combination of an origin on Palestinian soil with the Cynic-Stoic literary 
tendency may seem to some strange and unnatural. But it is possible that we under- 
rate the Hellenistic influence in some Palestinian centers, especially in Jerusalem. It 
is true the presence of the temple with its priesthood and its ritual was a strong con- 
servative influence. But the Sadducees who were intrenched there were hospitable 
to Hellenic culture. It is not likely that the constant intercourse between Jerusalem 
and Jews of the Dispersion would fail of some influence. The presence of a Hellenistic 
synagogue, or Hellenistic synagogues, in Jerusalem (Acts 6:8 ff.) is directly in point 
here. The fact that the members are represented as opposing Stephen does not con- 
stitute a serious objection; cf. Encyc. Bib., cols. 4737-88. Stephen himself may have 
been a Hellenist and have been impregnated with the views and ideas of Hellenism. 
There were Hellenists in the Jerusalem Christian community (Acts 6:1). Philo is an 
example of a Hellenist who remained a Jew, but who nevertheless laid under tribute 
whatever of Greek culture he could use. Josephus might also be cited. With the 
presence of a body of Hellenists in Jerusalem, with the constant stream of outside 
influence, and with the characteristic aptitude of the Jews to seize and use the best that 
other peoples produced, there is no serious reason for refusing to admit the possibility 
that a Jewish or Hellenistic preacher in Jerusalem might adopt the style which had 
been so successful in the hands of its exponents. If Paul made use of this Stoic agency 
our argument is by so much the stronger; cf. Bultmann, of. cit. 


587 


70 HISTORICAL AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES 


these sections renders the interests which lie behind them slightly more 
difficult to recover, but a careful examination will show that there are 
interests of a dominating character. There are two groups of material 
which have a common bond in that they relate to John the Baptist, and 
for convenience here these will be treated together. They are 3:7-20 
and 7:18-35. 

An early relation of Jesus and John the Baptist seems to be well 
founded. It is not easy to discover any reason for the production of 
such a tradition. Its persistence can be due only to its correspondence 
to actual fact. But in respect to the relation as generally conceived 
there are some difficulties. There can be little doubt as to the strength 
and character of the impression which the Baptist made on the people 
of this country. “They held John asa prophet.” In the opinion of the 
people his office and function was that of a preacher of righteousness. 
Moreover, we cannot be oblivious of the persistence of the Johannine 
movement and its possible status as a rival to Christianity.t These 
facts do not quite accord with the representation of this man’s gracious 
withdrawal before the “mightier than I.”” The early relationship of Jesus 
and John and the subsequent separation were matters to which the early 
Christians had to give consideration when they came to adjust their 
new views of Jesus to his earthly career. The cause of the separation 
does not belong to our discussion here. The relative positions and tasks 
of these two great figures were early explained by assigning to John the 
position of forerunner to the Messiah. Prophecies from various parts of 
the Old Testament were adduced in support of this claim. This arrange- 
ment not only solved the troublesome question of the relationship existing 
between the movements and their founders, but served to demonstrate 
and enhance the messianic dignity of Jesus. These are considerations 
which we must bear in mind as we proceed to an examination of the 
representation of the Baptist in the material before us. 

We are justified in inferring from the paucity of the material that 
we possess a very small part of the message of John. We must deal, 
however, with what we have and endeavor to discover the spirit and 
thought of his preaching. The first thing to be noticed is that John is 
represented as attempting to disturb that feeling of security in Abra- 
hamic descent which characterized the Jewish people. The lines of 
nationalism and favoritism are well-nigh obliterated, and an appeal is 
made to base the life on ethical principles. It is true that there are 
foregleams of these ideas in the great prophets, but it is surprising to 


τ Cf. above, p. 44. 
588 


SOME NON-MARKAN ELEMENTS IN LUKE 71 


hear this note emerging from an atmosphere of legalism. That, however, 
is not an insurmountable difficulty. But it is perplexing, on the assump- 
tion of its genuineness, to find that no appeal was made to this teaching 
in the Jewish controversy. Moreover, there appears to have been no 
opposition to John on the part of the religious leaders. This is indeed 
strange if he attacked one of their most precious heritages. But since 
John was persona grata to the Jews, a message such as we have here from 
his lips would be of great value and telling effect in a Christian appeal 
to Jews who were clinging to their ideas of national favor and covenant 
privilege. Is there not a subtle and significant reference to the Gentile 
mission in the words, “God is able of these stones to raise up children 
unto Abraham”? The situations which the peculiar turn of John’s mes- 
sage as here set forth would meet are church situations during the struggle 
with the Jews over Jewish privilege and Gentile admission. 

In vss. 10-14 we have a specific application of the general ethical 
attitude to various classes. “The multitude” is a term too indefinite 
to deny to any specific situation. It fits the preaching of John and of 
the Christian missionaries alike. But the ‘“‘publicans” as a class yield- 
ing to his exhortations strikes the reader as strange. Elsewhere Jesus 
represents himself as being criticized in strong contrast to John for asso- 
ciating with publicans and sinners.?_ If John came into close contact 
with them this comparison loses much of its point. However, the 
possibility is by no means excluded that John’s appeals were heeded by 
them. Little or nothing of such an effect of John’s preaching appears 
in the course of Jesus’ ministry. The third class mentioned is the 
soldiers. Did these go to hear John? Did they yield themselves to a 
Jewish idea and submit to its control? It is possible, but one cannot 
fail to wonder if Roman soldiers went to the desert to hear a Jewish 
fanatic preach.3 On the other hand, Christianity working in the cities 
came into contact with, and made appeal to, these very classes. In such 
an appeal and mission this tradition would be of value. The whole 
paragraph is, however, little more than a background for the succeeding 
verses, in which John declares the superiority and announces the judicial 
function of Jesus. This is the climax of this section and to it the preced- 
ing statements are subservient. 


τ Cf. the attitude of Paul to Abrahamic descent, Rom., chap. 4; Gal., chap. 3. 
2 Luke 7: 33-35. 
3 That they were Romans, or at least non-Jews, is clear; cf. Schiirer, Geschichte 
des jiidischen Volkes, 3 Aufl., 1, 459-60; History of the Jewish People, Div. I., Vol. II, 
Pp. 50. 
589 


72 HISTORICAL AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES 


The other material in which John appears is found in 7:18-35. This 
section also is difficult by reason of the incorporation of the idea of the 
forerunner. At the outset there is a lack of confidence on the part of 
John regarding this personage whom he is supposed to announce. There 
is genuine wonderment and perplexity. His movement is not merged 
in that of Jesus, the messengers are still “his disciples.”’ The depressing 
effect of John’s imprisonment is scarcely an adequate explanation for his 
attitude when compared with other parts of the Baptist tradition. There 
are but two matters in the section which call for our consideration. The 
first is the favorable attitude assumed toward the “people” and the 
“publicans,”’ and the hostile attitude taken toward the religious leaders 
represented by the “Pharisees and lawyers.’’ Here again we have a 
reflection of the struggle of the early Christians against the Jewish leaders 
which was so abundantly manifest in the Perean material. The other 
matter, and it is by far the more important, is the tribute of Jesus to 
John the Baptist. Not by any means the least interesting aspect of 
this tribute is its limitations. With the symbolic answer which Jesus 
gave to the Baptist’s query the incident would naturally be considered 
ended. But the fact is that the question and its answer are far less 
significant than that which follows. The words of Jesus constitute a 
splendid eulogy on the leader of the movement with which he had prob- 
ably identified himself at the beginning and with which he had broken 
when he found himself differing from it in thought and aim. John is 
placed at the very head of prophetic teachers. But with whatever pres- 
tige this brought, to which is added that of being the “preparer,” John 
is distinctly shut out from the kingdom of God.t. Here again the 
two movements are sharply differentiated. John’s position and John’s 
movement are represented as immeasurably inferior to the position of 
Jesus and his movement. 

In this Johannine material two main interests are discoverable. The 
first is the demonstration of the inferior position occupied by John and 
the minor importance of his movement as merely preparatory to that of 
Jesus. This relative position is admitted by John himself according to 
3:15-17, and is claimed by Jesus in 7:27, 28b. The chief situation 
which lies behind this interest is the necessity of dealing with the per- 
sistency of the Johannine sect and the endeavor to absorb it in the 
Christian movement. The second interest is the converse of the former 
and is an attempt to establish the superiority of Jesus as a person and a 

τς the real connection of a Johannine tradition broken by the insertion of vss. 
27 and 28)? 

590 


SOME NON-MARKAN ELEMENTS IN LUKE ie 


religious leader with the corresponding excellence of this movement. 
This superiority of Jesus is declared by John and is claimed by Jesus. 
Thus one interest is a question of policy and diplomacy, and the other a 
theological or polemical one. The diplomacy of the first interest is shown 
in the generous estimate placed on the person of John the Baptist and the 
very great importance assigned to his movement as secondary only to 
that of Jesus. This conciliatory attitude would do much to break down 
the opposition and prejudice of the members of the Johannine sect. The 
second interest will receive further attention in the following paragraphs. 

We consider now the temptation narrative contained in Luke 4: 1-13. 
This is a distinctly christological section and marks a phase of the adjust- 
ment of the facts of Jesus’ earthly career to the thoughts which were 
current in the early church regarding him. The view of the temptation 
taken by the source which Luke here follows is different from that of 
Mark, who sees in the conflict of Jesus with Satan amid the beasts a 
cosmic victory of the Messiah. It is quite true that the Lukan source 
considers the temptation in the light of a victory over the evil spirits 
represented by 6 διάβολος and thereby enhances the figure and person- 
ality of Jesus, but that does not exhaust the significance of the narrative. 
The somewhat detailed discussion of the three temptations serves to 
explain stubborn facts which seemed to conflict with the messianic 
dignity of Jesus. The first temptation explains the facts of the economic 
poverty and humble social position of Jesus. They were the result of a 
deliberate choice and as such did not invalidate his messianic claim. 
The second temptation addresses itself to the pressing problem as to why 
Jesus did not set up a messianic kingdom on earth. Again we find that 
it was a voluntary renunciation and that such a procedure was deliber- 
ately rejected as not in accordance with his plan. The failure of Jesus 
to reveal himself as a supernatural being endowed with messianic powers 
was perplexing to many Jewish minds. To give an explanation of this 
we have the third temptation, in which such a miraculous display as 
would convince the skeptical is definitely refused. All these questions 
were difficult and troublesome ones for the early Christians as they 
pressed the messianic claims of their Lord and were met by the scoffing 
queries of the Jews. The answer of the temptation story is that all the 
things which the Jews expected in their messianic king were within the 
power and grasp of Jesus, but in obedience to a higher ideal and another 
purpose he had risen superior to their allurements, and was so much 
greater than any messiah hitherto imagined. Again we have the interest 
of enhancing the person and official function of Jesus. 

591 


74 HISTORICAL AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES 


At the end of the narrative a word is added which indicates the 
ubiquitous practical interest of the early church: ‘And when the devil 
had completed every temptation he departed from him for a season.” 
This not only shows the completeness of the victory of Jesus over 
hostile forces and thus serves to demonstrate his superiority to them, 
but it would be an exceedingly useful word for the encouragement 
of Christians in the times of stress and testing which were frequent 
in the early Christian community. It would be heartening to recall 
that the “head of the church” had been “tempted in all points” and 
had endured. 

The story of the rejection at Nazareth as related in Luke 4:16-30 
has likewise a christological interest, although there is a difference in 
emphasis from the preceding. It represents the mission of Jesus as a 
preaching one and sets forth his task as that of a prophet. Importance 
is attached to the announcement of good tidings and the mediation of 
spiritual blessings. It is the “words of grace’”’ which impress the people, 
and as a prophetic preacher he makes his appeal to his fellow-townsmen. 
However, the demonstration of his prophetic mission is not all. He 
definitely assumes the title of prophet in vs. 24, but in vs. 23 the testi- 
mony of his mighty works finds expression.t The christological interest 
of this paragraph, then, has two sides: the supreme message of the 
blessings of God to men constitutes a credential of Jesus, and the marvel- 
ous works which had attended his ministry show his unique power and 
personality. In our discussion of the development of christological 
thought in the early church in the preceding section we saw that both 
these phases had a place. 

In the latter part of this narrative the missionary interest issues. 
The rejection of Jesus at Nazareth has its counterpart in the larger 
rejection of him by the Jewish people when he is presented to them as 
their Messiah by the Christians. The two striking instances of the 
blessing of Israel’s God being bestowed on non-Jews in the early prophetic 
time could be used with telling effect in the struggle of Christianity to 


τ ΤΊ is possible that vs. 23 may be a Lukan addition to the source under the influ- 
ence of Mark 6:2. The position of the story of the rejection at Nazareth in Luke is 
much earlier than that of Mark, who represents Jesus as having done many mighty 
works in Capernaum before his experience at Nazareth. In Luke, however, apart 
from 4:23, there is no mention of Capernaum until 4:31, and the writer may have felt 
it necessary to insert something to approximate the Markan situation. If this view 
is taken we shall have to modify our statement to the extent that there is but one type 
of christological representation in this paragraph, namely, the prophetic. But this 
will in no way affect the argument regarding the whole section. 


592 


SOME NON-MARKAN ELEMENTS IN LUKE 75 


break the bonds of its early nationalism. This function is so obvious 
as not to require argument. 

The peculiar material of Luke is broken at 4:30 by Markan material, 
only to be resumed in 5:1. ‘The section 5:1~-11 is instructive from our 
point of approach. The preaching mission of Jesus is reflected in the 
opening verse, but this is passed by rapidly in order to give attention 
to another phase of his activity. The interest which centers in the 
calling of the disciples tends to obscure the important part this section 
could play in demonstrating the supernatural knowledge of Jesus and his 
control over natural forces. The accuracy of his knowledge and the 
immediacy of results impress Simon Peter (the church leader of the early 
days) with a sense of the uniqueness and superiority of Jesus. The form 
of apostolic commission which appears here is worthy of notice. This 
statement of their consecration to a task by Jesus himself and their 
immediate devotion to it and to his person would be of inestimable value 
in establishing the position of the apostles as leaders in the church. The 
point of importance in this paragraph is that it is dominated throughout 
by christological thought. It sets forth Jesus as the one who has a 
marvelous and immediate control over both nature and men. 

The rest of this peculiarly Lukan material is found in 7:1—8:3 and 
is strongly marked with a general christological interest. The first part 
of the chapter concerns itself with the request of a certain centurion 
that Jesus would heal a servant who was at the point of death. In view 
of the gospel representation of Jesus as a doer of mighty works there is 
nothing strange in such a request, but some of the details of the story 
are very striking. The relations existing between the centurion and 
the elders of the Jews, the entreaty of the latter to Jesus to respond to 
the request made, especially taken in comparison with the balder account 
of Matt. 8:5-13, may suggest an attempt at mediation between the 
military class, the elders, and the Christians. Much more important, 
however, is the attitude toward Jesus which the officer is represented as 
assuming. If a Roman officer showed his respect and esteem to Jesus 
while Jesus was living it would make excellent apologetic material to the 
military class in the Christian propaganda. There is here a recognition 
of the supremacy, the authority, and the dignity of Jesus on the part of 
this centurion such as is scarcely met with elsewhere in our records. 
This acknowledgment of these characteristics and its tacit acceptance 
by Jesus would serve to demonstrate in an excellent manner to any 
questioning group the right of Jesus to the office and honors claimed for 
him by the church. It could be used with telling effect with the upper 

593 


70 HISTORICAL AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES 


classes. ‘The second striking thing that emerges is the wonderful power 
of Jesus, whose word is able to heal even at a distance. This unique 
ability is clearly understood by this suppliant non-Jew. The surprising 
attitude of the centurion opens the way for the comments of Jesus on the 
quality and magnitude of the faith exercised toward him. Τί is superior 
to anything that has been found among the people who should have been 
its most noteworthy exponents. This comparison of the faith manifested 
by Israel and by the Roman fits such a situation as that brought about 
by the conversion of Cornelius. If this tradition were current at that 
time, one cannot fail to wonder at the difficulty which Peter experienced 
in meeting the situation, a difficulty so great as to necessitate a vision. 
Moreover, how was it that the church so stubbornly resisted the admis- 
sion of Gentiles in the face of this example of the Master? Is it possible 
that the tradition crystallized first in such a situation? In this section 
we find again the twofold interest of showing the superiority of Jesus and 
of supporting the larger mission of Christianity. 

The paragraph containing the narrative of the raising of the son of 
the widow of Nain has given rise to some discussion. Many hold the 
opinion that it is a stray tradition inserted here by Luke to justify the 
statement of vs. 22, “the dead are raised up.’” It is quite true that it 
affords a basis for that remark, but it by no means follows that its 
insertion is due to the author of the Third Gospel. The interest which 
the paragraph displays is in such harmony with the general interest of the 
whole chapter, and in fact of the whole of this peculiar material which 
we are considering here, that there are strong grounds for considering it 
an integral part of a source which the author is here using. Even if it 
is to be regarded as incorporated for the purpose above indicated, there 
is no reason whatever for delaying its insertion till the time of Luke.s 


t Acts, chap. το. 
2 Cf. Johannes Weiss, Die Schriften des Neuen Testaments, 1, 448-49. 


3 The omission of the story of the raising of the widow’s son by Matthew has been 
thought to be evidence against its being in the source which Luke and Matthew used. 
This, of course, assumes identity of source for these two writers. Granting this, is 
there any reason why Matthew should omit it if it were present? He has copied Luke 
7:1-10, with the omission of vss. 3—-6a, fairly closely in Matt. 8:5-10, 13. The next 
levy on this source is made in Matt. 11: 29, where the question of the Baptist with Jesus’ 
answer and tribute are recorded. In this he follows Luke 7:18-35 with considerable 
accuracy. But between chaps. 8 and τι Matthew has recorded the raising of Jairus’ 
daughter, which furnishes a basis for the statement in the reply of Jesus, “‘the dead are 
raised up.” When we recall that Matthew omits the story of the anointing of Jesus 
by the penitent woman in the house of Simon, Luke 7:36-50, perhaps because he takes 


594 


SOME NON-MARKAN ELEMENTS IN LUKE rar 


The alternative is that the author is eclectic and is piecing together tra- 
ditions as his work progresses. There are very grave difficulties in the 
way of acceptance of this view. 

‘The incident shows a progress of thought when compared with that 
of the healing of the centurion’s servant, where Jesus is represented as 
possessing power over disease. Here his power and supremacy are 
heightened so that he has control of, and power over, death. The 
ascription to Jesus the Messiah of such a power would leave little to be 
desired. In this connection it is of interest to note the manner in which 
Paul grapples with the problem of the relation of the glorified Christ 
to death and the application of his thought to the resurrection.t The 
effect of this mighty work on the people of Nain is worthy of considera- 
tion. It is the prophetic character of the work of Jesus which seems to 
have impressed them. ΤῸ them the power and function of this man were 
those of a divinely sent and controlled prophet. They did not ascribe 
the power to do the mighty work to the person who stood before them, but 
to God who had visited his people.?__ As in the other material, we notice 
here a dominating christological interest. 

The question of the Baptist, with the answer and accompanying 
eulogy of Jesus, has been discussed above, so we pass to a consideration of 
the incidents of the dinner in the house of the Pharisee.s The narrative 
shows the superiority of Jesus to legal scrupulosity in his refusal to recog- 
nize the uncleanness of the touch of the sinful woman. This tradition 
would be of assistance in emphasizing the authority of Jesus over legal 
enactments and would help to cut the Gordian knot of the relation of 
Christianity to the law. It would likewise serve to break down the 
prejudice of Jewish Christians in working among such people. But 
these interests are minor ones in this connection. The Pharisee is repre- 
sented as doubting the prophetic ability of Jesus because of his failure to 
recognize the character of the woman who anointed him. Jesus appears 
in the best possible light when he shows not only that he is aware of the 


over from Mark 14:3-9 in a later chapter a somewhat similar story, we may conclude 
that even if he is using an identical source he is not binding himself to an absolute use, 
but is using selective powers. JI am not able to see that the omission of Luke 7: 11-17 
by Matthew is in any way proof that it was not in the source Luke had before him. 
The explanation lies in the difference of arrangement of material. 

tT Thess. 4:13 ff.; I Cor., chap. 15; Rom. 8:1 ff. 

2 Some have seen in several details of this narrative striking similarities to the 
accounts of the raising of the dead ascribed to Elijah and Elisha in I Kings 7: 17-24 and 
II Kings 4:17-37; cf. Feine, Eine vorkanonische Uberlieferung des Lukas, p. 40. 


3 Luke 7:36-5o. 
595 


78 HISTORICAL AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES 


type of woman who has come to him, but also he is quite cognizant of 
the thoughts which are passing through the mind of his host. The 
supernatural knowledge of Jesus is clearly exhibited in the conversation 
which follows. This is a phase of the superiority of Jesus which con- 
stantly characterizes this material. The same christological tendency 
is seen in the statements regarding the forgiveness of sins. There is no 
hesitancy on the part of Jesus to pronounce pardon, nor does he appeal 
to external authority. How great an assumption of official dignity and 
superiority this was in the eyes of contemporaries is reflected in the sur- 
prise of the query, “Who is this that forgiveth sins?’’ There are prac- 
tical interests discernible throughout the paragraph, but they contain 
nothing new and are decidedly secondary to the dominating motive of 
the exaltation of Jesus to a unique position of power and authority. 

The short section 8: 1-3 is of an entirely different type and probably 
does not belong to the source. If it does, it is a vagrant tradition which 
has attached itself to what was originally a separate document. Its 
function in the Third Gospel is merely connective. If we should look for 
an interest which is served by it, it would be found in the communistic 
or ministrative idea, which would be of value in urging support for those 
missionaries who devoted themselves to the work of the gospel. 

We have now passed in review the material which is peculiar to Luke 
in these chapters, 3-8, and it remains to gather the main facts and to 
draw from them their legitimate inferences. We have found imbedded 
in the sixth chapter what, on grounds of obvious direction, function, and 
literary style, may be considered a separate written source which the 
author of the Third Gospel has incorporated practically unchanged in 
his work. It was probably a sermon, or the digest of a sermon, which 
appealed so strongly to its hearers and performed such valuable service 
that it was preserved in this form for wider use. There seems to be 
justification for the theory that the Sermon on the Plain constituted a 
separate source for our author. Its date and place of origin are quite 
similar to those of the material of Luke 9:51—18:14. 

When we come to consider the remaining material we are conscious 
of a different thought-atmosphere, and, in fact, a different literary atmos- 
phere, as well. The discourse-material no longer predominates, but 
occupies a secondary place to the narrative. The practical interest, in 
the strict meaning of that phrase, appears only occasionally. In its 
place we have a controlling theological interest. We have noted the 
occurrence of a Baptist tradition. This has been brought into align- 
ment with the chief interest of the source, and there is ground for the 

596 


SOME NON-MARKAN ELEMENTS IN LUKE 79 


opinion that a careful combination of literary and historical criticism 
could restore to us part of a Johannine tradition which did not represent 
its hero as secondary to Jesus.! This does not concern us deeply here, 
for this Johannine material had been absorbed in the general interest and 
incorporated in the source before it reached the hand of the author of our 
gospel. The overwhelming interest of this material has been christo- 
logical. Throughout its various sections we have detected the purpose 
of indicating and demonstrating the superiority of Jesus. At one time 
he is the mighty prophet who by word and deed impresses those who 
hear his gracious words with a due sense of his unique greatness. At 
other times he is the supreme Lord over the forces of nature, of life, and 
of death, as in the healing of the centurion’s servant, the raising of the 
widow’s son, the miracles in the presence of John’s messengers, and the 
great draught of fishes. In the realm of knowledge which is beyond 
ordinary ken he walks serene and undisturbed. His supernatural 
knowledge enables him to detect the character and hidden thoughts of 
his fellows, and to be conversant with the secret workings of nature. His 
control over men is such that a word from him is sufficient to change the 
course of their lives.2?, Every ascription of superiority, supremacy, or 
dignity Jesus is made to accept as his right, and, on more than one occa- 
sion, actually claims it. It would then appear that what we have here 
is a document with the definite interest of meeting the difficulties which 
confronted the early church when it attempted to demonstrate the mes- 
sianic office, dignity, and power of Jesus while he was on earth. If his 
failure to meet the requirements of the common messianic ideal was 
opposed to the claim of his followers, they replied in the story of the 
temptation that a different purpose involved a voluntary refusal of the 
exercise of such powers and activities. If his humble and obscure career 
formed the basis of a taunt or became a stumbling-block to earnest 
seekers, his splendid message of divine blessing and love as well as his 
mighty works would be adduced as marks of his personal greatness and 
demonstrations of his high position. In short, we have here a document 
which was a christological polemic. To discover its provenance we need 
only recall the place where the battle for the messianic claims of Jesus 


t On the whole question of the existence of a document devoted to John the Baptist 
which has, at least in part, been incorporated in Luke, and on the question of the per- 
sistence of a Johannine sect which attempted to rival the Christian movement, cf. 
Clayton R. Bowen, in the American Journal of Theology, XVI, 90-106; cf. also Balden- 
sperger, Prolog des vierten Evangeliums; ἘΣ. F. Scott, The Fourth Gospel, pp. 77-86. 


2 Luke 5: 10-11. 
597 


80 HISTORICAL AND LINGUISTIC STUDIES 


was first fought. It was in Jerusalem that the apostles first set him forth 
as Messiah; it was there also that they met with stern opposition from the 
religious leaders of the people who would have been seriously com- 
promised by any general acceptance of the messianic character of Jesus. 
Moreover, it was in Jerusalem that, in response to various objections to 
ascribing this office to Jesus on the part of Jewish opponents who knew 
the career of Jesus, the first advances in christological thinking were 
made. If we were right in the sketch of christological development 
given in a previous section," we are in a position to give a relative date 
to this document. There we saw that the adoptionist Christology was 
followed by a phase which gradually thrust the messianic task and dignity 
back into the earthly career of Jesus and which seized upon various tra- 
ditions to support its claim. The prophetic aspect of his work, based 
on the promise of a ‘‘prophet like unto Moses,” preceded that of Jesus 
as a doer of messianic mighty works. In the Perean section we found 
the former representation predominating; here we have both aspects, 
that of the possessor and wielder of miraculous power being the more 
prominent. While the impossibility of distinguishing sharply in period 
between various phases is freely admitted, for there is high probability 
that different conceptions coexisted, yet a general chronological arrange- 
ment may be claimed. So, then, there is reason for placing the crystal- 
lization of these traditions and probably their collection into documentary 
form at that time when the emphasis on “mighty works” was beginning 
to force the prophetic representation into a secondary place. This 
would be somewhat later than the material of Luke 9:51—18:14, but 
earlier than Mark, for in the Second Gospel we have the emphasis on 
the miraculous highly developed and the annunciation of messianic 
office to Jesus at his baptism. 

Thus our study of this Lukan material has led us to these conclusions: 
Luke is using at least three sources, besides Mark, in these chapters. 
There is, first, the material which he has incorporated en bloc in 9: 51--- 
18:14; second, there is the Sermon on the Plain, which we consider a 
separate source; and third, there is the christological document scattered 
throughout chaps. 3, 4, 5, 7. The first and third of these sources are 
manifestly composite and had doubtless a literary history before they 
reached the hand of the author of the Third Gospel. They are all 
Palestinian in origin and the evidence points with some clearness to 
Jerusalem as the place where they assumed documentary form. Their 
probable dates have been indicated in the course of the discussion. 


Ci pp. 240 Ἦ- 
598 


ΜΩ͂Ν, 
aad 


Princeton Theological Seminary-Speer_ Librar 


OMHTO>U DM νον φορορς ἀεμεβολν ων net 
sfatshenabesusns ssn 


ν᾿ 


+ 
νι ψϑὰ ὄψα γι γόων ΤΣ, 
πε φίψαψελν γεν ϑό ῳφα Κ0} ἦν, 
ΤῊΝ ἐφ δυνε ῳτα φε τς 
Γὶ γγψυτγϑνγαφα ρανα 


i 
WALA) a ye 
ἘΠ Νς Da Nn tate 
TET ey Heer ᾿ ΚΗ, 
ΣΉΜ ν᾿ satis ἊΝ Ἂν. 6 Ne ΠΥ Ων 
been bibanebeesiintitens tatters tt ΚΝ δ᾿ " 1 r Pings: thee it eet ᾿ aint ist 743; 
ἐγ epebssers MPL Dn μὴ be. i } eB Os he ἡ eluent ge) ata° he 
ἘΠ ΒΘ ΤΉΜΉΡῊΝ th} 3 ‘4 ἀδυ  ΠΤΗ, ΠΝ να ΜΙΝ fit 
Spal rristtatesetdtat } ἊΝ ἡ ὑλ BA : ᾿ 
ἘΠ ΠΑΝΦΣΝ ΡΗΒΗ ΚΜ ἘΜΉΝ, Ἢ 
ΣΡ ρα ει etieate byt, Ay iat (re 4 


t 


Gat te 
ΜΠ 
ΝΠ 


Str eel 
PP PhEr oy by. baPebritlicheh cry at tok! “~~ 
ielepabidischac cl’ Haye en) 
eh phe depp oH oF ue ΟΜΝ 

μη sb val tals 

Hh he help δεν, 


paeaitesti τὴ 


hati 
SA Marie) ς 6 a | ΠΝ ᾿ t 4 
ie: ‘ ἢ ΡΜ ἸΔΟΥ͂Ν ἣν Feige + ἶ ἀπε 
ἘΣ test! ΗΝ ΠΝ tet Ἡ ΔῊ ye motehee big BAN AR oF , 

+} aes botsn ΣΉΝ ᾿ ΠΝ, 4 flat 

Hy baw yrs a f Ths ; 

ΝΟΥΣ ᾿ ἜΝ 

dy yeh 


ἢ" 


eatin 
ent 


+ re 
gba bine 
ΦΉΣ ante re h bated ν peasy We Hah 
eth Sion sR t+ UF Ls dad ip ace 7 ‘ iy 
Mesipbrarazecnki cat erst ἵ 
᾿ ad oat 


Tk a diate 
iets v i Le tetened ΜΠ ΚΠ trey Bh ART sti 
tates Bead ane ei tote RL 
mii + ay 
ΠΥ Η the 


Cb ὐφοξέφι ιν 


1} Watts aegis 
Π St Rstatleven nts, 
‘ A ΧΡῊ ΠΥΡῚ baal tft eee i ti Q mph Hie KAN 
iattpeater ated nts . Ἷ wh Sele ciates ‘ ¥ files 
inna Rechts Tete ; i tert Het Ἢ 
ΡΥ ΜΤΗΝ ἮΝ ᾿ sae t 


ary 
MEE 
1 Bas) 


ree 


fy 
ashy 
Neate cal 

hae Pye 


SAH Eth 
babes Akai 


ὌΝ He 


Wik Haat 


Hb Wary. 


SRSA E Sd) 
fies Bt ey 
ie 4 τ 


ὁ ἧς 
bit 


¢ ees 
iy ἡ ἮΜΟΣ ΚΕ ΡΆΣΟΥ ΤΩΝ ΜῈ ae teae ΠΝ 
; ᾿ ᾿ ) BR gee bari 
pipet a ἐν μὴ A wyfueteeetang 
bt Plobs ares 


eee 
canner Rt ot 
Selatan 


areas Soy 
Hiroe tigi (iver | 


te 
RY 
i) 


Se 


as 


ete 
tt-45 ΑΝΑΝ 


titel ein 


th pied ie 
λάρον τε ον 


